[Senate Hearing 112-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:35 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairwoman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Mikulski, Kohl, Reed, Cochran, Shelby,
Collins, Murkowski, and Coats.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. RAY MABUS, SECRETARY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Good morning. Today, the subcommittee
begins its hearings to review the fiscal year 2013 Department
of the Navy budget. I want to announce that there has been no
coup. To see me in the chair is, I am sure, a surprise to me as
much as it is to you. Senator Inouye cannot be here this
morning for an unexpected reason that arose. So he asked me to
chair the subcommittee.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, I think, as characteristic
of this subcommittee, it will run very smoothly.
Because we are expecting really active participation from
members, we are going to stick to the 5-minute rule. Members
will be recognized in the order of arrival but, of course,
starting with Senator Cochran.
What I will do is wait until the very end, ask my questions
then, and if there are any Inouye questions, I will ask them.
Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Mabus, it is so good to see you
again. I have got some questions for you, as you could imagine.
The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Admiral Jonathan W.
Greenert is here, as well as the Commandant of the Marine
Corps, General James F. Amos. General Amos, I understand you
are recovering from surgery, and you and your wife have
determined that you can appear today. But anything we need to
do to accommodate your situation, Sir, we will be happy to do
it.
We want to thank you for being here. And I am going to just
move right along. And Senator Cochran, why don't I turn to you
for an opening statement, and then we can turn directly to
Secretary Mabus and get on with the hearing. Does that sound
like a good way to go?
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. It
certainly does.
I am delighted to join you in welcoming this distinguished
panel of witnesses, former Governor of our State of
Mississippi, Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, who is doing an
outstanding job in his new capacity. And Admiral Greenert and
General Amos, who are leaders of our military forces, Navy and
Marine Corps forces, we appreciate so much your cooperation
with our subcommittee in responding to our request to be here
to review the budget for the Department of the Navy and our
forces in the fleet and in the Marine Corps. And we look
forward to our opportunity to question you about the priorities
that we face.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, fire at will.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAY MABUS
Mr. Mabus. Senator Mikulski, Senator Cochran, Senator Reed,
and Senator Coats, let me start by thanking you all for your
support of the sailors, marines, and civilians in the
Department of the Navy in ensuring that they get what they need
to do their mission.
I also want to say how happy I am to have my wing-man,
General Amos, back after--yes, I think he is a ``winged man''
now, but after his surgery last week. And the fact that he is
here today shows the level of dedication and resilience that
the marines have, and the pride that he, I, the CNO, Admiral
Greenert, take in leading the sailors, marines, and civilians
of the Department of the Navy, who selflessly serve the United
States, is exceeded only by the accomplishments of these brave
people.
Whatever is asked of them by the American people through
their Commander in Chief, from Afghanistan to Libya, from
assisting the stricken people of Japan to assuring open sea
lanes around the world, from bringing Osama bin Laden to final
justice to bringing hostages out of wherever they may be hidden
by terrorists or pirates, they answer the call. They get the
mission done.
The CNO, the Commandant, and I are confident that the
United States Navy and Marine Corps are well-prepared to meet
the requirements of the new defense strategy, to maintain their
status as the most formidable expeditionary fighting force the
world has ever known. No one--no one--should ever doubt the
ability, capability, or superiority of the Navy-Marine Corps
team.
As we reposition after two long ground wars, it was
essential to review our basic strategic posture. The new
guidance, developed under the leadership of the President and
the Secretary of Defense, with the full involvement of every
Service Secretary and Service Chief, responds to changes in
global security. The budget presented to implement this
strategy, which was also arrived at through full collaboration
of all services, ensures the Navy and Marine Corps will be able
to fully execute this strategy, while meeting the constraints
imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
With this new strategy, which has an understandable focus
on the Western Pacific and Arabian gulf region, maintains our
worldwide partnerships and our global presence, using
innovative, low-cost, light-footprint engagements, it requires
a Navy-Marine Corps team that is built and ready for any
eventuality on land, in the air, on and under the world's
oceans, or in the vast cyber-seas, and operated forward to
protect American interests, respond to crises, and to deter or,
if necessary, win wars.
The impact of two ground wars in the last decade on our
Navy fleet and its force is unmistakable. A fleet that stood at
316 ships and an end strength of more than 377,000 sailors on
September 11, 2001, dropped to 283 ships and close to 49,000
fewer sailors just 8 years later when I took office.
This administration has made it a priority to rebuild our
fleet. Despite the budget constraints imposed under the Budget
Control Act of 2011, our plan assures that we will have no
fewer ships at the end of the 5-year budget cycle than we have
today, although the fleet of fiscal year 2017 will include more
more-capable ships, equipped with state-of-the-art technology
and manned, as always, by highly skilled people.
Although we are presenting one 5-year budget plan, one
Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), this is certainly not a one-
FYDP issue. As the defense strategy states, we are building a
force for 2020.
In the years beyond the current FYDP, we have a plan to
grow our fleet and ensure capability and capacity continue to
match missions. In fact, our plan will have us again across the
threshold of 300 ships by 2019. Overall, we will fully meet the
requirements of the new status--of the new strategy and protect
our industrial base.
The Marine Corps will also return to its maritime roots and
resume its traditional role as the Nation's expeditionary force
in readiness. Our marines will retain the lessons of a decade
of hard and effective fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as they
transition back to a middle-weight amphibious force, optimized
for forward presence, engagement, and rapid crisis response. We
will carefully manage the reduction in active duty end strength
from 202,000 to 182,100 by the end of fiscal year 2016 in order
to keep faith with our marines and their families to the
maximum extent possible.
This restructured Marine Corps, a plan that was arrived at
after a year and a half of very careful study by the marines,
will be smaller. But it will be fast; it will be agile; it will
be lethal. The number of marines in certain critical jobs, like
special forces and cyber, will be increased, and unit manning
levels, and thus readiness, will go up.
Both the Navy and Marine Corps will continue to decrease
operational vulnerabilities in ways that are cost efficient.
That means we will maintain our efforts to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil and use energy more efficiently.
These efforts have already made us better warfighters. By
deploying to Afghanistan with solar blankets to charge radios
and other electrical items, a marine patrol dropped 700 pounds
in batteries from their packs and decreased the need for risky
resupply missions.
Using less fuel in theater can mean fewer fuel convoys,
which will save lives. For every 50 convoys, we lose a marine,
killed or wounded. That is too high of a price to pay.
As much as we have focused on our fleet's assets of ships,
aircraft, vehicles, and submarines, they don't sail, fly,
drive, or dive without the men and women who wear the uniform
and their families. They have taken care of us; they have kept
the faith with us; and we owe them no less.
The commitment to sailors, marines, and their families is
whether they serve 4 or 40 years. It begins the moment they
raise their hand and take the oath to defend our country. It
continues through the training and education that spans their
career. It reaches out to their loved ones because it is not
just an individual who serves but the entire family.
PREPARED STATEMENT
It supports our wounded warriors with recovery,
rehabilitation, and reintegration. It continues with transition
services for our veterans to locate new jobs and the GI bill
for their continuing education or transfer for a family
member's education. The list goes on and on and on, as it
should. Our commitment to sailors and marines can never waver
and can never end.
For 236 years, from sail to steam to nuclear, from the USS
Constitution to the USS Carl Vinson, from Tripoli to Tripoli,
our maritime warriors have upheld a proud heritage, protected
our Nation, projected our power, and provided freedom of the
seas. In the coming years, this new strategy and our plans to
execute the strategy will assure that our naval heritage not
only perseveres, but that our Navy and Marine Corps continue to
prevail.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Ray Mabus
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Inouye and Senator Cochran, I have the privilege of
appearing today on behalf of the sailors, marines, and civilians who
make up the Department of the Navy. This is the fourth year that I have
been honored to report on the readiness, posture, progress, and
budgetary requests of the Department. The pride the Commandant of the
Marine Corps, General James F. Amos; the Chief of Naval Operations
(CNO), Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert; and I take in leading the
dedicated men and women of the Department who selflessly serve the
United States in the air, on land, and at sea is exceeded only by the
accomplishments of these brave and selfless individuals.
Whatever is asked of them by the American people through their
commander in chief--from Afghanistan to Libya, from assisting the
stricken people of Japan to assuring open sea lanes around the world,
from bringing Osama bin Laden to final justice to bringing hostages out
of wherever they may be hidden by terrorists or pirates--they answer
the call and get the mission done.
As we pivot away from a decade of war on two fronts in two separate
nations, the Commandant, CNO, and I are confident that the U.S. Navy
and the Marine Corps are well-prepared to meet the requirements of the
new defense strategy and maintain their status as the most formidable
expeditionary fighting force the world has ever known. No one should
doubt the ability, capability, or superiority of the Navy-Marine Corps
team.
The administration's defense strategic guidance, with its
understandable focus on the Western Pacific and Arabian gulf region;
its requirement to maintain our worldwide partnerships; and its call
for a global presence using innovative, low-cost, light footprint
engagements requires a Navy-Marine Corps team that is built and ready
for war--on land, in the air, on and under the world's oceans, or in
the vast ``cyberspace''--and operated forward to protect American
interests, respond to crises, and deter and prevent war.
This new strategy, developed under the leadership of the President
and the Secretary of Defense, with the full involvement of every
service Secretary and service Chief, responds to the dynamic global
security environment, while meeting the constraints imposed under the
Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) passed by the Congress.
Our ability to meet the demands of this new strategy depends on the
improvements we have begun and objectives we have set regarding how we
design, purchase, and build new platforms, combat systems, and
equipment; increase the development and deployment of unmanned systems
to provide increased presence and enhanced persistence at lower cost
and less danger; and how we use, produce and procure energy. Most
importantly, our efforts and this new strategic guidance, and the
budget that guidance informs will assure that we continue to keep faith
with those who serve our country so selflessly and heroically, our
sailors and marines, civilians, and their families.
FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET SUBMISSION
Fleet Size
On September 11, 2001, the Navy's battle force stood at 316 ships
and 377,000 sailors. Eight years later when I took office, the battle
force had fallen by 49,000 sailors, and to 283 ships. Today, 3 years
into the Obama administration, the fleet increased to 285 ships of all
types.
Many have noted that we have the lowest number of battle force
ships since 1917. But today's ``Fleet'' is best thought of as a fully
integrated battle network comprised of sensors, manned and unmanned
platforms, modular payload bays, open architecture combat systems, and
smart, tech-savvy people. Thus, making comparisons between today's
``total force battle network'' with the battle force of 1917 is like
comparing a smart phone to the telegraph. Still, even though the ships
coming into service today are vastly more capable than their 1917
predecessors, at some point quantity has a quality of its own. This is
why building up the number of ships in our Fleet has been a priority
for this administration from day-one.
The topline reductions mandated by the BCA made holding to current
Fleet numbers a difficult challenge. However, I am pleased to report to
you that we have developed a plan that delivers a Fleet with the same
number of ships by the end of the future year's defense plan (FYDP), as
we have today--all while still meeting our fiscal obligation to support
a responsible end to our ground combat mission in Afghanistan. The
fiscal year 2013-2017 shipbuilding plan maintains a flexible, balanced
naval battle force that will be able to prevail in any combat
situation, including in the most stressing anti-access/area denial (A2/
AD) environments.
While our ship count stabilizes in this FYDP, our shipbuilding
plans aim to build a Fleet designed to support the new defense strategy
and the joint force for 2020 and beyond. The specific requirements for
this future Fleet will be determined by an ongoing force structure
assessment, which should be concluded later this year. Regardless of
the final battle force objective, however, you can expect to see the
Fleet's ship count to begin to rise as the littoral combat ship (LCS)
and joint high-speed vessels (JHSVs) built during the next 5 years
begin to enter fleet service beyond this FYDP and as we sustain our
major combatant and submarine building profiles. As a result, even
under the fiscal constraints imposed by the BCA, the battle force is
projected to reach 300 ships by 2019.
While the final ship count will be determined by the FSA, the
decisions made during the recent President's fiscal year 2013 budget
(PB-13) deliberations will result in a battle force consisting of:
Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carriers and Air Wings.--With delivery
of USS Gerald R. Ford, the first of a new class of nuclear-
powered aircraft carriers, in 2015, we will have 11 CVNs in
commission and will sustain that number at least through 2040.
Our future carriers will be even more powerful, with new combat
capabilities resident in the F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike
Fighter, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, EA-18G Growler electronic
attack aircraft, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye airborne early warning
aircraft, and new unmanned air combat systems.
Nuclear-Powered Attack Submarines.--SSNs are the key to
sustaining our dominant lead in undersea warfare. While the
procurement of one Virginia-class submarine was delayed from
2014 to 2018 to help free up budget resources in the FYDP, the
planned fiscal year 2014-2018 Multiyear Procurement of nine
submarines remains intact. To mitigate the loss of large
undersea strike capability when SSGNs retire in 2026-2028, we
invested research and development for the Virginia Payload
Module (VPM). VPM could provide future Virginia-class SSNs with
an additional four SSGN-like large diameter payload tubes,
increasing each SSN's Tomahawk cruise missile capability from
12 to 40. While we are committed to a long-term force goal of
48 SSNs, low submarine build rates during the 1990s will cause
us to fall below that number for some time starting in the late
2020s. We continue to explore ways to limit the submarine
shortfall by increasing the near-term submarine build rate,
improving affordability, and maintaining the health of this
critical industrial base.
Guided Missile Cruisers and Destroyers.--The Arleigh Burke-class
DDGs remain in serial production, with funding in place for a
nine-ship fiscal year 2013-2017 MYP. The next flight of DDG 51s
will introduce a more powerful and capable Air and Missile
Defense Radar in fiscal year 2016. We project that the new
defense strategy will require slightly fewer large surface
combatants so we will retire seven Ticonderoga-class CGs in
this FYDP--all but one before a planned mid-life ballistic
missile defense upgrade, and that one had serious structural
issues--achieving considerable cost savings at relatively low
risk. The long-term inventory of guided missile cruisers and
destroyers is projected to come down as combatants built at the
rate of 3-5 per year during the cold war begin to retire in the
2020s. We are exploring a variety of ways to mitigate these
losses.
Littoral Combat Ships.--With their flexible payload bays, open
combat systems, ability to control unmanned systems, and superb
aviation and boat handling capabilities, LCSs will be an
important part of a more agile future Fleet. New crew rotation
plans, built on a modified version of the highly successful
SSBN two-crew model, will allow for substantially more LCS
forward presence than the frigates, mine counter-measures
ships, and coastal patrol craft they will replace, and will
free our more capable multimission destroyers for more complex
missions. Although forced to shift two LCSs outside the current
FYDP to achieve cost savings, we remain fully committed to our
plan to ultimately purchase 55 of these warships.
Amphibious Ships.--Thirty amphibious landing ships can support a
two-Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) forcible entry operation
with some risk. To generate 30 operationally available ships,
the strategic review envisions an amphibious force consisting
of 32 total ships, or 5 ships more than we have in commission
today. The ultimate fleet will consist of 11 big deck
amphibious ships, amphibious transport dock LPD-17s, and 10
landing ship, dock ships. To support routine forward
deployments of Marine Expeditionary Units, the amphibious force
will be organized into nine, three-ship Amphibious Ready Groups
(ARGs) and one four-ship ARG in Japan, plus an additional big-
deck amphibious ship available to support contingency
operations worldwide. We will place two LSDs into reduced
operations status, allowing us to reconstitute an eleventh ARG
in the future, or to build up the number of ships in the active
inventory, if necessary. Consistent with these changes, we have
deferred procurement of a new LSD, aligning it with LSD-42s
planned retirement. We also intend to disband the third
maritime prepositioning force squadron that we placed in
reserve last year due to fiscal restraints and reorganize the
two remaining active squadrons with more capable ships, making
them more effective.
New Afloat Forward Staging Bases.--Navy is proposing to procure a
fourth Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) in fiscal year 2014,
configured to serve as an Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB).
This AFSB will fulfill an urgent combatant commander request
for sea-based support for mine warfare, Special Operations
Forces, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR),
and other operations. To speed this capability into the fleet
and to ultimately provide for continuous AFSB support anywhere
in the world, we also intend to request congressional approval
to convert the fiscal year 2012 MLP into the AFSB
configuration, resulting in a final force of two MLPs and two
AFSBs. This mix will alleviate the demands on an already
stressed surface combatant and amphibious fleet while reducing
our reliance on shore-based infrastructure.
Most of the ship reductions in the President's fiscal year 2013
budget submission--16 fewer than the comparable years' in the fiscal
year 2012 budget--are combat logistics and Fleet support ships and
reflect prudent adjustments to our new strategy and a lower defense
topline. For example, 8 of the 16 ships cut from our 5-year plan were
JHSVs. These cuts reflect the new 10-ship JHSV requirement developed
during our strategy review.
In addition, we simply delayed purchasing three new oilers, which
were part of an early changeover from single-hulled to more
environmentally safe and internationally accepted double-hulled ships.
Our current Fleet of oilers will not start to retire until the 2020s,
so there is no impact on the number of available oilers for Fleet
operations. Finally, an ocean surveillance ship was added to the Navy's
plan last year to provide greater operational depth to our current
Fleet of five ships; however, after careful consideration, we concluded
we could meet our operational needs with five ships and could cut the
sixth ship with manageable risk.
Ships are not the only platforms in our ``total force battle
network''. Accordingly, the new defense strategic guidance also
required us to review and evaluate the needs of our naval aviation
community going forward into the 21st century. We plan to complete our
purchases of both the F/A-18 Super Hornet and the EA-18 Growler within
the next 2 years. The Department recently completed a review of our
aviation requirements for the F-35 that validates our decision to
purchase for the Navy and Marine Corps 680 F-35s over the life of the
program. While we plan to slow procurement over the next 5 years to
address program risks, especially concurrency, we remain committed to
procuring 680 aircraft. The F-35B, the short-take-off-vertical-landing
variant, completed successful at-sea trials onboard the USS Wasp and
overall testing is proceeding very well. For the carrier version, the
F-35C testing exceeded the plan by 30 percent last year. In light of
this encouraging testing performance, we are even more confident that
this multirole, cutting-edge platform will more than meet our tactical
requirements in the future security environment.
The Navy and the Marine Corps continue to carefully monitor strike
fighter capacity requirements as well. Changes in the Marine's force
structure, accelerated transition from the legacy Hornet aircraft to
the Super Hornets, and a reduction in use resulted in an appropriately
sized strike fighter aircraft inventory. Based on current assumptions
and plans, our strike fighter aircraft shortfall is predicted to remain
below a manageable 65 aircraft through 2028 with some risk.
In the far term, the Navy will need to replace its F/A-18E/F Fleet.
Pre-Milestone A activities are underway to define the follow-on F/A-XX
aircraft. Options include additional F-35s, a variant of the Unmanned
Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system, a
new manned/unmanned platform, or some combination of these. While we
remain committed to the first-generation UCLASS, which will provide a
low-observable, long-range, unmanned ISR-strike capability that will
enhance the carrier's future ability to project power in anticipated
A2/AD threat environments, the target date for a limited operational
capability has shifted by 2 years from 2018 to 2020 to reduce schedule
and technical risk, as well as to meet the savings targets mandated by
the BCA.
The planned reduction in our cruiser inventory has decreased
requirements for MH-60R Seahawk helicopters, allowing us to reduce
procurement in this program by nine aircraft. Fiscal constraints have
also led us to reduce E-2D Hawkeye and P-8 Neptune procurement over the
FYDP. We still intend to procure all the aircraft originally planned
but at a slower rate.
Future Force Structure Assessment and Re-Designation of Primary Mission
Platforms
Given the broad refocus of the Department of Defense (DOD) program
objectives reflected in the new defense strategy, the Navy has
undertaken analysis of the existing force structure requirements and,
in conjunction with ongoing internal DOD studies and planning efforts,
is reworking an updated FSA against which future requirements will be
measured. The new FSA will consider the types of ships included in the
final ship count based on changes in mission, requirements, deployment
status, or capabilities. For example, classes of ships previously not
part of the battle force such as AFSBs developed to support SOF/
nontraditional missions, patrol combatant craft forward deployed to
areas requiring that capability, and Comfort-class hospital ships
deployed to provide humanitarian assistance, an expanded core Navy
mission, may be counted as primary mission platforms. Any changes in
ship counting rules will be reported and publicized. Any comments on
total ship numbers in this statement are based on current counting
rules.
As noted earlier, in the years beyond the current FYDP, we have a
plan that puts us back on track to increase our Fleet and ensure
capacity matches the demands of the mission. However, with the Fleet
and force we have today, we will meet the requirements of the new
strategy, continue to protect our national interests, preserve our
ability to deter or defeat aggressors, and maintain the industrial base
needed.
Marine Corps
After a decade of hard fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Marine
Corps will return to its maritime roots and resume its traditional role
as the Nation's naval expeditionary force-in-readiness. We will
carefully manage reduction in active duty end strength from 202,000 to
182,100 by the end of fiscal year 2016. Drawing upon its long history
of aligning its training and structure with areas of operations, the
Marines will continue to provide tailored security force assistance and
to build partnership capacity missions with allies and other regional
partners. Along these same lines, the Marine Corps will continue to
leverage the experience gained over the past decade of nontraditional
warfare to strengthen its ties to the special operations community. The
resulting middleweight force will be optimized for forward presence,
engagement, and rapid crisis response through strategic positioning at
forward bases in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans, as well as
renewed participation in traditional Amphibious Ready Group/Marine
Expeditionary Unit (ARG/MEU) exercises. The Marine Corps shall maintain
required readiness levels throughout the transition process. Most
importantly, we will drawdown without breaking faith with Marines and
their families.
In summary, the Department's strategy calls for a world-class Navy-
Marine Corps team, and our plan delivers one that is fully ready to
meet the current and emerging challenges. We will maintain a strong
naval presence in the Western Pacific, Indian Ocean, and the Middle
East. This will be accomplished by adjusting basing assignments for
some units from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as well as by increasing
the number of units operating from ports located in theaters of
interest. We are still committed to strategic dispersal. The Department
will, for example, operate four LCSs from Singapore. Similarly, we will
continue to expand our usage of AFSB and coastal patrol boats around
Africa and in the Arabian gulf to counter the growth of piracy and the
growing threat of swarming small boats as well as to help partner
nations build their own maritime capacity while upholding our national
interests. We also received two high-speed ferries from the Maritime
Administration, which will most likely operate in the Western Pacific
supporting the peacetime transport of U.S. Marine Corps forces deployed
to Okinawa and Australia.
Seapower and Naval Presence
Since the end of the second World War, the Navy-Marine Corps team
has acted as the guarantor of the global maritime commons, upholding a
sophisticated set of international rules that rest upon two
inextricably linked principles: free trade and freedom of navigation.
These principles have supported an era of unprecedented economic
stability and growth, not just for the United States but for the world
at large.
This period of growth has resulted in a truly ``globalized''
economy which owes much to the unique scalability and flexibility of
our naval forces. We can reroute Navy ships and Marine Corps units to
create appropriate responses as actions unfold. We can shift force
concentrations from the Atlantic to the Pacific or from the southern
oceans to northern seas with ease. From a single JHSV to a Carrier
Strike Group and from a Marine Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team to an
Expeditionary Unit, combatant commanders can scale naval forces and
their responses appropriately to emerging challenges across the
spectrum of engagement. Our forces are flexible enough to shift from
supporting combat air patrols over Afghanistan to providing
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in Japan at a moment's
notice. Much of their flexibility derives from the use of the high seas
as a vast, unencumbered maneuver space. This freedom of navigation
allows our naval forces to gather information, perform surveillance and
reconnaissance of seaborne and airborne threats, defend regional
partners, interdict weapons of mass destruction, disrupt terrorist
networks, deter, and, if necessary, defeat prospective adversaries.
LAW OF THE SEA
The traditional freedom of the seas for all nations developed over
centuries, mostly by custom, have been encoded within the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This important
treaty continues to enjoy the strong support of DOD and the Department
of the Navy. The UNCLOS treaty guarantees rights such as innocent
passage through territorial seas; transit passage through, under and
over international straits; and the laying and maintaining of submarine
cables. The convention has been approved by nearly every maritime power
and all the permanent members of the UN Security Council except the
United States. Our notable absence as a signatory weakens our position
with other nations, allowing the introduction of expansive definitions
of sovereignty on the high seas that undermine our ability to defend
our mineral rights along our own continental shelf and in the Arctic.
The Department strongly supports the accession to UNCLOS, an action
consistently recommended by my predecessors of both parties.
NAVAL OPERATIONS IN 2011
Naval presence serves as a deterrent against those who would
threaten the national interests of the United States even as it assures
allies and partners of our consistent commitment. Our enduring national
security interests require our continued presence to provide the
President and our Nation with credible response options to deter
conflict and, if necessary, defend the United States' national security
interests from the sea. From counterinsurgency and security force
assistance operations in Afghanistan to ballistic missile defense and
humanitarian assistance missions in Europe and the Western Pacific and
naval engagement in South America and Africa, our sailors and marines
are making a difference around the globe every day. On any given day,
more than 72,000 sailors and marines are deployed and almost one-half
of our 285 ships are underway, responding to tasking where needed by
the combatant commanders.
Visiting our forward-deployed forces and meeting with allies and
partners, commanders and staffs, and our marines and sailors on the
ground provides insights as to how we can better support all of their
critical efforts. In June, September, and again in December, I
travelled to Helmand province in Afghanistan on behalf of the
Department and visited forward operating bases. These were my fifth,
sixth, and seventh trips to theater in Afghanistan. In each area,
Taliban offenses and infiltration had been forcefully rebuffed.
Critical relations had been built with local Afghan leaders and
significant progress has been made towards the goal of creating
effective Afghan security forces that will be able to build on these
efforts. I also visited Camp Leatherneck and, among other things,
toured the Concussion Restoration Care Center where I met with wounded
warriors. At all of my stops, I expressed the appreciation of the
American people for the courage and sacrifices of our marines and
sailors who serve alongside them on the field of battle.
For more than 6 decades, our Navy-Marine Corps team has been the
strongest naval force afloat and we are committed to maintaining this
position of influence. Our strength, versatility, and efficacy derive
from our unique capacity for global reach, our focus on warfighting
excellence and our commitment to maintaining naval presence in regions
vital to our national interests. We cannot predict the exact nature of
the challenges facing the Department in the 21st century, but a glimpse
back at operations in 2011 illustrate the increasing variability of
events that required a flexible naval response.
Special Operations.--United States Navy SEALs remain decisively
engaged throughout the globe conducting the Nation's most sensitive and
important counterterrorism operations. They served with great
distinction in Iraq and continue to serve in Afghanistan with telling
effect. From the killing or capturing of the most wanted terrorists to
the rescue and recovery of captured American citizens abroad, we ask
them to do the most daunting of missions.
Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.--Having completed
operations in Iraq, the Department has maintained more than 23,000
marines and sailors in Afghanistan, largely associated with Regional
Command-Southwest based in Helmand province. This force provides
security and seeks to build the self-defense capacity of our Afghan
partners. Currently, the Navy has deployed just more than 8,000 sailors
on the ground, 2,920 of whom are reservists, across the Central Command
supporting joint and coalition efforts. Another 10,000 sailors are in
the Arabian gulf and the Indian Ocean supporting combat operations from
destroyers, submarines, supply vessels, and aircraft carriers, which
launch around 30 percent of the aircraft conducting combat air patrols
over Afghanistan. On the first day during the opening moments of
Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, the U.S. Navy launched 122 Tomahawk
cruise missiles from two surface ships and three submarines, including
the guided missile submarine USS Florida, the first time one of these
converted ballistic missile submarines has fired ordnance in live
operations. Ground-based Navy E/A-18G Growlers flying combat missions
in Iraq were repositioned to support Odyssey Dawn, and within 44 hours,
engaged hostile forces in Libya. When violence erupted across northern
Africa and the Middle East, significant portions of the USS Kearsage
ARG and 26th MEU, then off the coast of Pakistan, were directed to take
station off the coast of Libya.
Ballistic Missile Defense.--Another newly emergent mission centers
on the ballistic missile defense (BMD) capable Ticonderoga-class
cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers that provide homeland
defense-in-depth as well as the protection of U.S. and allied forces in
distant theaters. As ballistic missile capabilities have proliferated
around the globe, the demand for BMD capable ships has increased
dramatically. For example, over the past year, BMD ships like the USS
Ramage, USS Monterey, and USS Stout took up station in the Eastern
Mediterranean to provide BMD for both Europe and Israel. Elsewhere,
elements of Destroyer Squadron Fifteen provided similar support in the
waters surrounding Japan.
Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief.--Following the
devastating earthquake and tsunami last year that resulted in the
deaths of more than 15,000 Japanese citizens, the displacement of
thousands, and the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, the Ronald
Reagan Strike Group, en route to support combat operations missions in
Afghanistan, was diverted to Japan to provide humanitarian assistance.
Upon arrival, instead of combat, the crews were employed to shuttle
tons of water, food, and blankets to displaced victims ashore, while
the strike group's ships simultaneously served as landing and refueling
stations for Japanese self-defense force (JSDF) rescue helicopters
operating in the region. The Reagan Strike Group supplemented units of
the USS Essex ARG with its embarked 31st MEU, which is forward deployed
in Japan, in what became known as Operation Tomodachi--``Friendship''
in Japanese. Elements of the USS Essex ARG airlifted more than 300 JSDF
personnel and 90 vehicles from Hokkaido to disaster areas while USNS
Safeguard and Mobile Dive and Salvage Unit One transported relief
supplies to Yokosuka for distribution throughout the affected areas.
Additionally, the Navy transported the equipment and personnel of the
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard's Radiological Control Team as well as the
Marine Corps' Chemical Biological Incident Response Force to Japan to
assist with nuclear monitoring efforts.
Anti-Piracy.--Throughout the year the Navy performed the critical
mission of combating piracy and supporting the anti-piracy efforts of
our allies and partners in the region. Ships operated in conjunction
with allies and partners in the vicinity of the Horn of Africa to
prevent the disruption of the free flow of trade in the Gulf of Aden.
More recently elements of the Stennis Strike Group freed Iranian
citizens who were being held hostage by pirates in the Arabian Sea.
Their actions directly resulted in the capture or killing of 21 pirates
and the freeing of 38 hostages.
Partnership Stations and Maritime Exercises.--The Navy remains
committed to building our partner nations' capacities to provide for
their own maritime security. This year we once again created
``partnership stations'' in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea, off
the coast of South America and around the continent of Africa to work
with local navies to educate their leaders, train their sailors,
strengthen their material infrastructure, increase their maritime
domain awareness, and raise their response capacity. USS Cleveland, USS
Oak Hill, USS Robert G. Bradley, the hospital ship USNS Comfort and
high-speed vessel Swift were strategically deployed to work with the
maximum number of partner navies to provide medical care and security
training while building local naval capacity to plan and conduct
operations in the maritime environment.
Last, with an eye to the future of naval and maritime operations in
an increasingly ice-free Arctic, the Virginia-class submarine USS New
Hampshire and the Seawolf-class submarine USS Connecticut conducted Ice
Exercise 2011 with Canadian and United Kingdom counterparts in the
Arctic Ocean.
AIR-SEA BATTLE
The Navy and Marine Corps are working with the Air Force to
implement the Air-Sea Battle concept which seeks to improve integration
of air, land, maritime, space, and cyberspace forces in order to
provide combatant commanders the range of military capabilities
necessary to maintain operational access and deter, and if necessary
defeat, an adversary employing sophisticated A2/AD capabilities and
strategies.
The Air-Sea Battle concept leverages the military and technological
capabilities as well as unprecedented Naval and Air Force
collaboration, cooperation, integration, and resource investments
within the services' purview to organize, train, and equip.
The jointly manned Air-Sea Battle Office has defined a series of
initiatives to achieve the capabilities and integration required in
future naval and air forces so that combatant commanders have the tools
necessary to ensure U.S. freedom of action in future years.
As we work to implement and enhance the Air-Sea Battle concept, the
Navy continues to invest in capabilities to counter advanced A2/AD
challenges, including:
--BMD enhancements both in the Aegis Combat System and the Standard
Missile, as well as myriad ``soft-kill'' initiatives;
--integration of advanced air and cruise missile defense
capabilities;
--harpoon missile replacement, which will increase the range (and
speed) at which we can engage enemy surface combatants armed
with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles;
--Virginia-class submarines and the VPM, which has the potential to
mitigate the loss of the SSGN undersea strike capacity when
they retire in the mid-2020s;
--improvements in Joint Force Command, Control, Communications,
Computers; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
capabilities which will significantly increase our information
gathering and warfighting coverage in access-challenged areas,
as well as provide counters to adversary capabilities; and
--cyberspace capabilities.
DEPARTMENTAL PRIORITIES
The Department must adhere to four key priorities with strategic,
tactical, operational and management elements if we are to maintain our
position as the world's most formidable expeditionary fighting force
while continuously evolving our Navy and Marine Corps as a strategic
asset that provides our Commander-in-Chief with the broadest range of
options in a highly dynamic international security environment. These
priorities remain:
--taking care of our sailors, marines, civilians, and their families;
--treating energy as a strategic national security issue;
--promoting acquisition excellence and integrity; and
--continuing development and deployment of unmanned systems.
These principles guide the direction of the Department, from
training our recruits at Great Lakes, Parris Island, and San Diego, to
our ongoing operations in central Asia and the Western Pacific, to
acquiring the Navy and Marine Corps of the future.
In the end it all comes down to stewardship; the careful management
of our people, platforms, infrastructure, and energy to guarantee that
your Navy and Marine Corps are ready to defend our Nation's interests.
Taking Care of Sailors, Marines, Civilians, and Their Families
As we move forward, the Department is committed to our most
important asset--our sailors, marines, civilians, and their families. A
large part of our commitment is the careful attention to pay and
benefits. No one's pay will be cut; only the growth of pay is slowed in
the later years of our 5-year plan. Specifically, we are proposing
continued pay raises at 1.7 percent for military personnel in fiscal
year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, in line with the private sector,
recognizing the continued stress on our forces and their families, and
providing time for families to adjust.
We support asking the Congress to establish a commission with
authority to conduct a comprehensive review of military retirement in
the context of overall compensation. The Commission should seek ways to
identify improvements in the military retirement system, ensuring any
proposed change to military retirement supports required force profiles
of DON in a cost-effective manner. We believe that the Commission
should protect, through grandfathering, the retirement benefits of
those currently serving.
With so much of our defense strategy dependent upon our Navy and
Marine Corps, we must ensure that our resources support the most combat
effective and the most resilient force in our history. We must set high
standards, but at the same time we must provide individuals with the
services needed to meet those standards. The Department will soon
announce the 21st century sailor and marine initiative, which is a set
of objectives and policies across a spectrum of wellness that maximizes
sailor and marine personal readiness. The program consists of five
pillars:
--readiness;
--safety;
--physical fitness;
--inclusion; and
--the continuum of service.
Readiness will ensure sailors, marines, civilians, and their
families are prepared to handle the mental and emotional rigors of
military service. Both services are introducing campaigns this year to
deglamorize, treat, and track alcohol use. We will also develop new
means to reduce suicides and increase our family and personal
preparedness programs. This includes zero tolerance for sexual assault.
The DON Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office was created and
made part of the secretarial staff to keep the issue at the front of
the discussion, to strengthen the lines of communication with the Navy
Judge Advocate General (JAG) and Naval Criminal Investigative Service
(NCIS), and to make sure the Secretariat received frequent updates
about the incidents of sexual assault and our progress towards reducing
the number of attacks. We are continually working to improve the
reporting, investigation, and disposition of sexual assault cases
ensuring commanders, investigators, and prosecutors receive sufficient
training and appropriate resources. Last year, JAG finalized a complete
revision of the advanced trial advocacy courses that train litigators
involved in sexual assault cases as well as filled the Deputy Director
of the Trial Counsel Assistance program position with a senior civilian
sexual assault litigator. JAG and NCIS are working aggressively to
educate lawyers and agents on the unique aspects of sexual assault
cases. NCIS has hired personnel to provide assistance and support to
NCIS special agents; this will enable special agents to focus on
conducting investigative activities, trial preparation, and
prosecutorial testimony relative to adult sexual assaults.
Our efforts to ensure the safest and most secure force in the
Department's history extend to encouraging the safe use of motor
vehicles and motorcycles.
Physical fitness is an important central pillar that resonates
throughout the 21st century sailor and marine program. Personal fitness
standards throughout the force will be emphasized. We will also improve
nutrition standards at our dining facilities with the introduction of
``Fueled to Fight''. Fueled to Fight ensures that healthy food items
will be available and emphasized at every meal.
The Department will be inclusive and consist of a force that
reflects the Nation it defends in a manner consistent with military
efficiency and effectiveness. The Department will also reduce
restrictions to military assignments for personnel to the greatest
extent possible, consistent with our mission and military requirements.
We must ensure that all who want to serve have opportunities to succeed
and barriers that deny success are removed. Nothing reflects our core
values of honor, courage, and commitment better than having an
organization characterized by fairness and dedication. Last year for
the first time ever, 16 women were assigned to submarines. This will
expand command-at-sea opportunities and eventually increase the chances
for more women to be promoted to admiral. Additionally, we need an
officer corps that is representative of the enlisted force it leads.
Through increased minority applications from diverse markets, the
United States Naval Academy and Naval Reserve Officers' Training Corps
(NROTC) programs are achieving historical racial and ethnic diversity
rates. The United States Naval Academy received nearly 7,000 minority
applications for its class of 2014, nearly double that of the class of
2010. Along with recent NROTC additions at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and
Arizona State University (with the largest undergraduate population in
the country), next we are establishing an NROTC unit at Rutgers
University. Not only is it one of the Nation's top engineering schools,
but more than one-half of its class of 2014 identify themselves as
minority.
The final pillar, continuum of service, will provide the most
robust transition support in the Department's history. Individuals
choosing or selected for either separation or retirement will be
afforded a myriad of assistance programs and benefits that are
available to them as they transition to civilian life. These programs,
which include education benefits, transition assistance, career
management training, counseling, life-work balance programs, and
morale, welfare, and recreation programs, have been recognized by human
resource experts as some of the best corporate-level personnel support
mechanisms in the Nation.
Because the Navy and the Marine Corps were highly successful in
meeting their recruiting goals, we have been able to be very selective,
accepting only the very best candidates who are morally, mentally, and
physically ready to serve. Historically high-retention rates have put
us below our active duty manning ceiling of 322,700 sailors and 202,100
marines. Our recruiting classes have gotten smaller, as have our ``A''
school classes, and promotion rates from E-4 to E-6 have fallen as
well. More officers in the O-5 and O-6 pay grades are choosing to
remain on active duty rather than retire, leading to smaller promotion
selection groups and repeated adjustments to promotion zones.
We have attempted to deal with this challenge within the enlisted
ranks by instituting the ``Perform to Serve'' program that used a
detailed algorithm to advise personnel specialists on who should be
allowed to re-enlist, but this approach did not fully address either
the systemic manning challenge confronting us or the unsustainable
overmanning in certain enlisted ratings. This past year, given fiscal
constraints and manpower draw-downs, we decided to confront the problem
head on and convened special administrative enlisted retention boards,
senior enlisted continuation boards, and officer selective early
retirement boards to pare back overmanned enlisted ratings and officer
ranks. It was a difficult decision to use these force management tools,
but the future of the Department requires us to fix the problem now
rather than further delaying a decision.
Another vital support program that we remain committed to is the
support we provide to our wounded warriors. Since 2001, more than 900
sailors and nearly 13,000 marines have been wounded as a result of
combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This year we completed the
alignment of the Army's Walter Reed Medical Center with our own
National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, and we continued to invest
in the doctors, techniques, and technologies to care for the injuries
that have become representative of modern warfare:
--traumatic brain injury;
--amputations;
--burns; and
--post-traumatic stress disorder.
The requirements for the Purple Heart were updated to include the
immediate and lasting damage associated with brain injuries.
Part of our commitment centers around the families and caregivers
that support our wounded warriors as they endure the challenges of
recovery, rehabilitation, and reintegration. The 2010 National Defense
Authorization Act provided a Special Compensation for Assistance with
Activities in Daily Living to help offset income lost by those who
provide nonmedical care and support to servicemembers who have incurred
a permanent catastrophic injury or illness.
Driven by the moral obligation to assist our injured heroes, the
Department has set a goal of being able to offer every combat wounded
sailor or marine an opportunity to continue their service as a civilian
on the Navy/Marine Corps team. Our Wounded Warrior Hiring and Support
Initiative aims to increase the number of veterans with a 30 percent
and above service-connected disability into our workforce. Through this
initiative, we have hired more than 1,000 veterans with 30 percent and
above service-connected disability rating in fiscal year 2010 and
fiscal year 2011. Our Naval Sea Systems Command alone hired 509
service-disabled veterans for fiscal year 2011, exceeding its goal of
hiring one veteran for each day of the fiscal year. We recently held
our second annual Wounded Warrior Hiring and Support Conference to
provide prospective employers and human resource professionals with the
tools and resources to enable them to hire, train, and retain our
wounded warriors in the civilian workplace.
This past August the President announced his Veteran's Employment
Initiative that extends tax credits to businesses that hire veterans.
We work with the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Labor to establish
programs that ease the transition of veterans into the civilian world.
We are also heavily engaged through the Yellow Ribbon Program in
supporting the reintegration efforts of our reserve forces.
I want to address the defense budget proposals regarding healthcare
costs. The DON and DOD on the whole continue to face rapidly rising
costs in healthcare. In 2001, DOD healthcare costs were approximately
$19 billion. By 2010 that amount had risen to $51 billion and as a
percentage of our budget is approaching 10 percent. This rate of rise
cannot be sustained. We continue to streamline our staffs and standard
operating procedures in an ongoing effort to manage costs while
retaining quality patient care and overall customer satisfaction. One
area where we continue to be challenged is system accessibility for our
retiree community, especially in areas where bases have been closed due
to the base realignment and closure process, leaving behind a large
retiree population with no local access to military treatment
facilities. Increasing use of the affordable Mail Order Pharmacy
program and implementing modest fee increases, where appropriate, would
go far toward ensuring the long-term fiscal viability of the system
while preserving equity in benefits for our retirees.
I consider my obligations to the well-being of every sailor and
marine, and every family member under their care to be sacrosanct. We
worked carefully to develop these proposals, with all participants--the
Government, the providers of healthcare, and the beneficiaries-sharing
in the responsibility to better manage our healthcare costs. I have
previously asserted that as a former Governor, I well know that the
growth in healthcare costs is an issue for the country, not just the
military. But, we all have to do our part. The TRICARE benefit remains
one of the best benefits in the country. I hope you will support our
proposed changes.
Also this past year the Department, along with the other military
departments, worked with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and more than 70
employers to launch a program targeted at expanding the career
opportunities for military spouses. The Military Spouse Employment
Partnership seeks to help the business community recognize the skills
and talents that military spouses bring to the workforce but are unable
to fully leverage due to frequent moves of the servicemember in the
family. This partnership between the military and the business
community promises to tap into the energy of one of the most hard-
working, highly skilled, educated, and yet under-utilized segments of
our population.
Overall, the fiscal year 2013 budget reflects a responsible request
for the fiscal support and resources required to support our marines,
sailors, their families, and our retirees in the face of increasing
operational pressures and financial demands upon them. Thank you for
your continuing support.
Energy Security and Sustained Leadership
We must reform how the Navy and the Marine Corps use, produce, and
procure energy, especially in this fiscally constrained environment. We
must use energy more efficiently; however, the Department must also
lead on alternative energy or we will leave a critical military
vulnerability unaddressed, further straining the readiness of our
sailors and marines to be able to respond wherever and whenever called
to defend and protect America's interests.
Fuel is a tactical and operational vulnerability in theater;
guarding fuel convoys puts our sailors' and marines' lives at risk and
takes them away from what we sent them there to do:
--to fight;
--to engage; and
--to rebuild.
The Department is also exposed to price shocks in the global market
because too much fuel comes from volatile regions, places that are
vulnerable to instability and ruled by regimes that do not support our
interests. Every time the cost of a barrel of oil goes up $1, it costs
the Department $30 million in extra fuel costs. In fiscal year 2012
alone, in large part due to political unrest in oil-producing regions,
the price per barrel of oil is $38 more than was budgeted increasing
the Navy's fuel bill by more than $1 billion. These price spikes must
be paid for out of our operations funds. That means that our sailors
and marines are forced to steam less, fly less, and train less. The
threat of price spikes is increased by the vulnerability of choke
points. Energy analyst have speculated that if Iran ever succeeded in
closing the Strait of Hormuz, the price of oil could rise by 50 percent
or more in global markets within days.
We would never let the countries we buy oil from build our ships or
our aircraft or our ground vehicles, but we give them a say on whether
those ships sail, whether those aircraft fly, whether those ground
vehicles operate because we buy their oil. As a Nation we use more than
22 percent of the world's fuel, but only possess less than 2 percent of
the world's oil reserves. Even if we tap every domestic resource we do
not have enough to meet all of our needs over time, and as a minority
producer of fuel we will never control the price.
That is why in the fall of 2009, I established five goals for the
Department, the broadest of which is that by no later than 2020, 50
percent of the Department's energy will come from alternative sources.
These goals drive the Navy and the Marine Corps to use energy more
efficiently, to explore wider use of alternative energy, and to make
energy a factor in the acquisition of our next ships, tactical
vehicles, and aircraft.
As one example of our success, the Marine Corps continues to
aggressively pursue technologies that will help achieve greater energy
efficiency while increasing combat effectiveness in the theater. The
Third Battalion, Fifth Marines, deployed to the Helmand Province in
Afghanistan with solar blankets to power radios, LED lights to
illuminate tents, and solar generators to provide power. One 3-week
patrol was able to reduce their carrying weight by 700 pounds, reducing
the number of dangerous resupply missions needed. Even in a tough fight
in Sangin, the marines managed to cut fuel use and logistical support
requirements by 25 percent at main operating bases and up to 90 percent
at combat outposts by relying on these alternative energy technologies.
The Marine Corps is committed to finding more innovative solutions to
decreasing dependence on convoys by conducting two experimental forward
operating bases per year (one in Twentynine Palms and one in Camp
Lejeune).
Another initiative to increase alternative energy supply is using
advanced, drop-in biofuel in aircraft and ships. Our criteria for this
fuel are straightforward. It must be ``drop in'' fuel requiring no
changes to our aircraft or our ship or our infrastructure; it must be
derived from nonfood sources; and its production should not increase
our carbon footprint as required by law. In 2011, the Department
completed testing on 50/50 blends of drop in biofuel and jet fuel on
all manned and unmanned aircraft, including an F/A-18 Hornet at MACH
1.7 and all six Blue Angels during an air show. The Department has also
tested an experimental Riverine Command Boat, a self-defense test ship,
a ridged hull inflatable boat, and a Landing Craft Air Cushion that
traveled at more than 50 knots.
In March of this past year, the President directed the Departments
of Agriculture, Energy, and the Navy to partner with the private sector
to catalyze a domestic, geographically dispersed, advanced biofuel
industry for the United States. In response to this directive, Energy
Secretary Dr. Steven Chu, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, and I
signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) committing our departments
to jointly partner with industry to construct or retrofit multiple
domestic commercial or pre-commercial scale advanced drop-in biofuel
refineries capable of producing cost competitive fuels. Under the MOU
we issued a request for information in August, which drew more than 100
responses in 30 days from companies ranging from major oil companies
and large defense contractors to small businesses.
In December, Defense Logistics Agency energy awarded a contract on
our behalf to purchase 450,000 gallons of biofuel; the single largest
purchase of biofuel in Government history. The Department will use fuel
from this purchase--awarded to the most competitive bidder under full
and open competition--to demonstrate the capability of a carrier Strike
Group and its air wing to burn alternative fuels in a full operational
environment including underway replenishments for destroyers and
refueling of helos and jets on the deck of an aircraft carrier. The
demonstration will take place as part of the Rim of the Pacific naval
exercise.
We are also pursuing efficiencies measures in our fleet. The USS
Makin Island, the Navy's first hybrid electric-drive ship, saved $2
million on its maiden voyage from Pascagoula, Mississippi to its
homeport in San Diego, California. It is estimated to save
approximately $250 million in fuel costs over the course of its
lifetime--approximately 40 years--at current energy prices.
A hybrid electric drive system will also be installed as a retrofit
proof of concept on the USS Truxtun (DDG 103)--an existing Navy
destroyer. We estimate that successful testing will result in fuel
savings of up to 8,500 barrels per year. If these tests are successful
we will continue to install hybrid electric drives as a retrofit on
other DDGs in the fleet. The U.S. Navy has been installing stern flaps
to reduce drag and energy on amphibious ships in an effort to make them
more fuel-efficient, which could save up to $450,000 annually in fuel
costs per ship.
Whether it is the procurement of new ships and aircraft or the
retrofit of existing platforms, we are making energy a consideration in
the acquisition process. In addition to traditional performance
parameters such as speed, range, and payload, the Department is
institutionalizing energy initiatives that will save lives, money, and
increase warfighting capability. Analyzing energy costs during the
``analysis of alternatives'' phase of major defense acquisition
programs will ensure warfighters get the speed, range, and power they
require, as well as help the Department manage the life-cycle costs of
its systems. The Marine Corps pioneered this approach last year by
including system energy performance parameters in developing a new
surveillance system and the Navy has included energy criteria as part
of the procurement of the LSD-X.
All across our shore installations, the Navy and the Marine Corps
are also undertaking energy-efficiency initiatives and installing
alternative energy wherever practical. As just one example, at China
Lake Naval Air Weapons Station we are a net contributor to the local
power grid, creating more than 270 megawatts (MW) of clean, affordable
geothermal power in partnership with the private sector.
And in January, we tapped the vast renewable energy resources
available at China Lake again breaking ground on a 13.8MW solar array,
offsetting 30 percent of the base's electric load. The contract is a
20-year power purchase agreement (PPA) having no upfront costs to the
Navy and saving the Navy $13 million during its term.
To meet the energy goal of 50-percent alternative energy ashore, I
have directed the Navy and the Marine Corps to produce or consume one
gigawatt of new, renewable energy to power naval installations across
the country using existing authorities such as PPAs, enhanced use
leases, and joint ventures. One gigawatt of renewable energy could
power 250,000 homes, or a city the size of Orlando. This will be a
broad and dynamic project that, over the life of the contract, will not
cost the taxpayer any additional money, and will create domestic
private sector jobs. This will be our path to unlocking our Nation's
clean-energy potential that leaves our military more secure, agile,
flexible, and ready.
To further facilitate our partnerships with industry, the
Department is trying to make our contracting opportunities more
accessible. Two years ago, we introduced a Web site called Green Biz
Ops which aggregates our energy and efficiency opportunities for
procurement. This site helps all companies interested in doing business
with the Navy--and especially small businesses--find opportunities in
one place. In partnership with the Small Business Administration last
year our agencies launched a ``2.0'' version of Green Biz Ops called
the Green Procurement Portal which expands the site to include more
features as well as energy opportunities across DOD and the Federal
Government.
To prepare our leadership to achieve our energy goals, this fall
the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) began offering a dedicated energy
graduate degree program, the first military educational institution to
do so. Later this year, NPS will launch an Executive Energy Series to
bring our senior leadership together to discuss specific energy
challenges that confront the Navy and the Marine Corps. This energy-
focused masters degree program and the executive energy series will
target both the current and future civilian and military leadership of
the Navy and the Marine Corps.
Further, promotion boards have been directed to specifically
consider the background and experience in energy some of our men and
women in uniform are gaining today. Energy is not just an issue for the
future or just the young officers and policy experts that attend NPS.
It is an issue for all of us.
Those who question why the Navy should be leading on energy should
study their history. The Navy has always led in new forms of energy:
shifting from wind to coal-powered steam in the middle of the 19th
century, from coal to oil in the early 20th century, and pioneering
nuclear power in the middle of the 20th century.
Promoting Acquisition Excellence and Integrity
Especially given the fiscal reality of our budget deficit, we are
fully cognizant of our responsibility to the President, the Congress,
and the American people to spend this money wisely. What history shows
us is that when budgets are tight we should get smarter about the way
we spend our money. As noted earlier, rebuilding our fleet has been and
will continue to be a top priority of this administration. Achieving
this lies at the heart of the acquisition excellence initiative that
has been a priority for the Department for almost 2 years now, because
if we do not get smarter about how we buy, in addition to what we buy,
we are not going to be able to afford the Navy and the Marine Corps
that the Nation needs in the future.
Improving how we buy means that we have to take actions against
fraud and shoddy contractors. The Department's General Counsel and the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and
Acquisition are authorized to take the swiftest and strongest action in
any case where bribery or attempts to gain preferential contracting
treatment are substantiated. When a violation occurs, RDA may terminate
the contract and assess damages immediately, in addition to pursuing
suspension and debarment. The Department's Acquisition Integrity
Program was recently recognized by the Government Accountability Office
as one of the more effective at using suspension and debarment
practices.
The Department's role in the President's new defense strategy is
clear and will drive acquisition programs underway or in development.
We will carefully define program requirements and then drive
affordability through aggressive ``should cost'' oversight and
competition where possible, such as the fixed-price contracts we
negotiated for the LCS or the multiyear procurements that we negotiated
for Virginia-class submarines. Innovative funding strategies and stable
industrial base workload further allow for efficiencies that provide
opportunities to acquire more ships more affordably.
To keep our technological advantage, we plan to invest in science
and technology and research and development to maintain the knowledge
base and keep it moving forward. This is the lesson of the 1920s and
1930s when so much of the technologies that became critical to our
victory in World War II were kept alive in military, academic, and
industrial laboratories. Times and technologies change, and we need to
preserve the capability to change with them. Proper funding of our labs
and research centers is key to incubating the next ``game-changing''
breakthroughs that will sustain the United States military advantage
over time.
The acquisition workforce was downsized over the past 15 years and,
in truth, was stretched too thin. Accordingly, and with your strong
support, we are increasing the number of acquisition professionals and
restoring to the Government the core competencies inherent to their
profession and to our responsibilities in the Department to organize,
train, and equip the Navy and the Marine Corps. The Department has
grown its acquisition workforce by 4,400 personnel since starting the
effort 2 years ago, increasing its technical authority and business
skill sets.
Additionally, the Department is keeping program managers in place
longer to build up their experience, expertise, and oversight on
individual programs. We are also investing in education for our program
managers. As an example, we send all of our program managers to an
intensive short course at the graduate business school at the
University of North Carolina, specifically targeting a better
understanding of our defense contractors:
--what motivates them;
--what are their financial situations; and
--how can we work with them to achieve a win-win contract award for
both the taxpayer and the stockholder.
We are also changing the way in which we evaluate our program
leaders to incentivize them to work with their industry counterparts to
manage costs.
Over the FYDP, affordability will continue to be a central concern
of this Department. As resources are tight, cost has got to be one of
the primary considerations of every program, and it ought to be driven
by ``should cost, will cost'', methods. ``Should cost'' scrutinizes
each contributing ingredient of program cost and seeks to justify it.
The ``will cost'' method represents an effort to budget and plan
weapons acquisition programs using realistic independent cost estimates
rather than relying on those supplied by the manufacturer. Make no
mistake, our focus will remain on the security of our primary customer,
the American people, for whom we will build the best possible Fleet for
the future.
Shipbuilding/Industrial Base
A healthy industrial base is critical to supporting the
Department's top priorities. The dangerous downward trend in our ship
inventory has been and must stay reversed. Even though we face
increased fiscal constraints, we still plan, as we noted earlier, to
grow the fleet to 300 ships by 2019. We want to increase the number of
our highly capable large surface combatants to meet the President's
directive that we confront the growing ballistic missile threat to the
United States and its allies, while strengthening our small combatant
inventory to provide the presence needed to maintain freedom of
navigation. We have to make significant investments in support vessels
while continuing our investment in our nuclear submarine force and
maintaining the viability of our last yard capable of building nuclear-
powered aircraft carriers.
What all this means is that we will need to closely monitor the
shipbuilding industrial base as we move forward. Much as with energy,
we need to ensure diversity in supply moving forward. We need to
strengthen our relationship with traditional shipbuilders, but we need
to reach beyond them to small- and mid-tier shipbuilders to develop
innovative designs and new construction techniques to meet emerging
threats.
Developing and Deploying Unmanned Systems
When I took office in 2009, unmanned systems were already at work
within the Department. To assist our troops on the ground in Iraq and
in Afghanistan we had either purchased or contracted for thousands of
unmanned aerial vehicles that flew hundreds of thousands of hours in
support of our mission. Despite their demonstrated utility, there was
no vision of where unmanned systems belonged in the Navy and the Marine
Corps future force structure or coherent plan to achieve that vision.
Over the past 2 years, the Services have worked hard to develop a plan
and the presence and reach of our unmanned systems have expanded,
including the first expeditionary deployment of a Fire Scout Vertical
Takeoff and Landing unmanned aerial vehicle, and the first successful
flight of the unmanned combat air system, which will begin carrier
demonstrations later this year. In total, nearly 1,500 unmanned aerial
systems deployed into theater.
In the fleet, unmanned systems need to be integrated into
established operational communities. The Marine Corps have been out in
front on this effort, having established four unmanned aerial system
squadrons over the past quarter century, and the Navy is working on
these capabilities as well. This past year a detachment of Helicopter
AntiSubmarine Squadron 42 deployed with a SH-60B Helicopter and a MQ-8B
Firescout and supported combat operations in Libya and counter piracy
operations in the Gulf of Aden. In both environments, they leveraged
the operational flexibility and low-signature characteristics of
unmanned systems to support local commanders while keeping sailors and
marines safe from danger. Additionally, our Tactical Air Control
Community took possession of their first small tactical unmanned aerial
system this past year and began to integrate it into the Surface
Warfare community's day-to-day operations. In the future, the Maritime
Patrol and Reconnaissance Aviation community, soon to take delivery of
the P-8A Poseidon, will add the MQ-4C Broad Area Maritime Surveillance
unmanned aerial system to their squadrons and hangars, extending the
reach and persistence of maritime reconnaissance capabilities.
We will test and field mine hunting and then mine sweeping
capability of the Mine Countermeasures Mission Module in LCS, employing
airborne and remotely operated vehicles to reduce the risk to sailors
and the cost. Current developmental testing of the Increment I Mine
Warfare mission package is underway in USS Independence, demonstrating
mine hunting capability with the AN/AQS 20A mine hunting sonar set,
towed by the remote multimission vehicle. Future increments will
incorporate autonomous mine sweeping and the ability to find buried
mines using unmanned surface and underwater vehicles.
The UCLASS system is changing the way we plan to deliver
reconnaissance and strike capabilities from our venerable aircraft
carrier platforms. Designed to operate in contested airspace and
conduct ISR or strike missions over extended periods of time, the
UCLASS at sea will differ fundamentally from the standard operating
procedures of both manned carrier aircraft or land-based unmanned
aircraft. Unlike with a manned carrier aircraft that is mostly used to
maintain the qualifications of its pilot, a UCLASS airframe will be
employed only for operational missions and pilots will maintain
qualifications in the simulator, extending its useful life expectancy
considerably. Its airborne mission time will not be limited by human
physiology but rather will be determined by the availability of tankers
to refuel it, ordnance expenditure, or the need to change the oil after
many hours of flight time. This will allow us to launch from greater
distances, effectively negating emergent A2/AD technologies. We have
only just begun to understand the potential of this unmanned system and
the capabilities that will spiral from it.
CONCLUSION
Our Constitution requires that the Congress ``maintain a Navy.'' We
do so with the world's most advanced platforms, equipped with cutting-
edge weapons systems and manned by crews who receive the best training
possible is a credit to our Nation. The Navy that fought and defeated a
more advanced British Navy in the War of 1812 looked very different
from the Navy of 2012. But our sailors and marines continue to live up
to that legacy forged 200 years ago. Today, your Navy and Marine Corps
are deployed across the spectrum of engagement from rendering
humanitarian assistance to combat. They often seem to be everywhere
except at home. They bring to these efforts skills, training, and
dedication unmatched anywhere else in the world. The enduring support
of this subcommittee for our key programs and our people enables us to
fulfill the ancient charge of the founders that we should sail as the
Shield of the Republic, and we thank you.
The goals and programs discussed today will determine our future as
a global force. At the direction of the President, we have worked to
streamline our processes, to eliminate programs that no longer fit in
the current strategic environment, and to construct new approaches to
the challenges of the modern world while retaining the ability to deter
regional conflict and respond rapidly and decisively to emerging
crises. Our specific requests are reflected in the President's fiscal
year 2013 budget submission.
The process by which we arrived at these requests was both
deliberate and determined. We are fully aware of the economic
environment and the fiscal constraints that our Government faces today.
We have attempted to balance these considerations with the President's
requirement that we maintain a ready and agile force capable of
conducting the full-range of military operations. We want to assure you
that the Department has considered the risks and applied our available
resources efficiently and carefully. This year's request aligns with
the Defense Strategic Guidance and the priorities and missions
contained within it while balancing trade-offs that you and the
American taxpayer expect of us.
For 236 years, from sail to steam to nuclear; from the USS
Constitution to the USS Carl Vinson; from Tripoli to Tripoli; our
maritime warriors have upheld a proud heritage, protected our Nation,
projected our power, and provided freedom of the seas. In the coming
years, this new strategy and our plans to execute that strategy will
assure that our naval heritage not only perseveres, but that our Navy
and Marine Corps continue to prevail.
Thank you and Godspeed.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Admiral.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JONATHAN W. GREENERT, CHIEF OF
NAVAL OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES NAVY
Admiral Greenert. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Mikulski, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you
for the first time to discuss the Navy's budget submission.
Because of the dedication of our 625,000 active and reserve
sailors and civilians, and their families, the Navy and our
primary joint partner, the Marine Corps, remain a vital part of
our national security. I am honored to serve and lead the Navy
in these challenging times, and I thank the subcommittee for
your continued support.
This morning, I would like to address three points: the
Navy's importance to the Nation's security; some enduring
tenets and priorities that guided our decisions in this budget;
and how these decisions shaped our budget submission.
Today, our Navy is the world's pre-eminent maritime force.
Our global fleet operates forward from U.S. bases and partner-
nation places around the world to deter aggression, respond to
crisis, and, when needed and when called upon, win our Nation's
wars.
If you refer to the chartlet in front of you, you can see
that on any given day we have about 50,000 sailors and 145
ships underway, with about 100 of those ships deployed
overseas. These ships and sailors allow us to influence events
abroad because they ensure access to what I refer to as the
maritime crossroads. These are areas where shipping lanes and
our security interests intersect, and they are indicated on the
chartlet by little orange bow-ties.
We can remain forward in these areas because of the
facilities and the support from nearby allies and partners. For
example, in the Middle East, we have 30 ships and more than
22,000 sailors at sea and ashore. They are combating piracy,
supporting operations in Afghanistan, assuring our allies, and
maintaining a presence in the region to deter or counter
destabilizing activities. These forces rely on facilities in
Bahrain, a U.S. partner for six decades.
In the Asia-Pacific, we have about 50 ships supported by
our base on Guam and facilities or places in Singapore, the
Republic of Korea, and Japan. They will be joined next spring
by our first littoral combat ship (LCS), USS Freedom, which
will deploy to Singapore for several months to evaluate our
operational concepts.
In the Indian Ocean, we depend on Diego Garcia and the
fleet tender and the airfield there for ship repair and
logistics support.
Around the Horn of Africa, we depend on the airfield and
the port in Djibouti to support our forces conducting
counterterrorism and counterpiracy operations.
In Europe, we rely on places in Spain, Italy, and Greece to
sustain our forces forward in support of our North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) allies.
And in our own hemisphere, our port and airfield at
Guantanamo Bay will grow more important in the next several
years as the Panama Canal is widened.
When I assumed the watch as Chief of Naval Operations about
6 months ago, I established three tenets, which I call
``unambiguous direction'', for our Navy leadership. And they
are warfighting first, operate forward, and be ready.
Warfighting first. This means the Navy must be ready to
fight and prevail today while building the ability to prevail
tomorrow. This is our primary mission, and all our efforts must
be grounded in this fundamental responsibility.
Iran's recent provocative rhetoric highlights the need for
us to have forward-deployed warfighting capability. In our
fiscal year 2013 budget submission, we redirected funding
toward weapons systems, sensors, and tactical training that can
be more rapidly fielded to the fleet. This includes
demonstrators and prototypes that could quickly improve our
force's capability.
Operate forward. This means we will provide the Nation an
offshore option to deter, influence, and win in an era of
uncertainty. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission supports
several initiatives to establish our forward posture at the
maritime crossroads. These include placing forward deployed
naval force destroyers in Rota, Spain, and forward stationing
LCSs in Singapore, and patrol coastal ships in Bahrain. One
ship that is operating from an overseas location can provide
the same presence as about four ships rotationally deployed
from the continental United States.
We are also collaborating with the Marine Corps to
determine the support and the lift needed for marines to
effectively operate forward in Darwin, Australia, in the
future.
Be ready. That means we harness the teamwork, the talent,
and the imagination of our diverse force to be ready to fight
and to responsibly use our resources. This is more than
completing required maintenance and ensuring parts and supplies
are available. Being ready also means being proficient,
confident, and understanding our weapons, our sensors, command-
and-control communications, and our engineering systems as
well.
Now, applying these tenets to meet the defense strategic
guidance, we built our fiscal year 2013 budget submission to
implement three main investment priorities.
Number one, we will remain ready to meet our current
challenges today. Consistent with the defense strategic
guidance, we will continue to prioritize readiness over
capacity and focus our warfighting presence in the Asia-Pacific
and the Middle East. We will also sustain the Nation's most
survivable strategic deterrent in our ballistic missile
submarines (SSBNs).
Priority two, we will build a relevant and capable future
force. Our Navy will evolve to remain the world's pre-eminent
maritime force, and our shipbuilding and aircraft construction
investments will form the foundation of the future fleet.
In developing our aircraft and ship procurement plans, we
really focused on three approaches: one, to sustain the serial
production of today's proven platforms, including Arleigh Burke
destroyers, Virginia-class submarines, and our F/A-18 Super
Hornets; number two, to promptly field new platforms in
development, such as the LCS, the Joint Strike Fighter, the
Ford-class carrier, the P-8A Poseidon aircraft, and the
America-class amphibious assault ship; and three, we wanted to
improve the capability of today's platforms through new
weapons, sensors, and unmanned vehicles, including advanced
missile defense radar, the Fire Scout, and its follow-on, the
Fire-X. New payloads like these will help ensure we project
power, despite threats to access, as described in the new
defense strategic guidance. They will also enable our continued
dominance in the undersea environment and support our goal to
operate effectively in cyberspace and fully exploit the
electromagnetic spectrum.
In developing the future force, we will continue to
emphasize jointness, as described in our Air-Sea Battle
concept. And we will also emphasize affordability by
controlling requirements creep and making cost an entering
argument for new systems.
And priority three, we will enable the support of our
sailors, civilians, and their families. I am extremely proud of
our people. We have a professional and a moral obligation to
lead, to train, to equip, and to motivate them.
Our personnel programs deliver a high return on investment
in readiness. We fully funded our programs to address
operational stress, to support our families, eliminate the use
of synthetic drugs such as Spice, and to aggressively prevent
suicides and sexual assaults.
I support the compensation reforms included in the Defense
Department's fiscal year 2013 budget submission, which I
believe are appropriate changes to manage the costs of the All-
Volunteer Force.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In closing, your Navy will continue to be critical to our
Nation's security and prosperity by assuring access to the
global commons and by being at the front line of our Nation's
efforts in war and in peace. I assure the committee and the
Congress and the American people that we will focus on
warfighting first, we will operate forward, and we will be
ready.
I want to thank you, Senator Mikulski, and the subcommittee
and your staff that are behind you and around this room for
helping us in preparing our submission. And I thank you and the
subcommittee for your support.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, it is my honor and pleasure to appear before you
to submit my first budget as Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). Thanks to
our 625,000 active and reserve sailors and civilians and your continued
support, the Navy-Marine Corps team remains vital to our national
security and economic prosperity. Operating globally at the front line
of our Nation's efforts in war and peace, our fleet protects the
interconnected systems of trade, information, and security that
underpin our own economy and those of our friends and allies. Our Navy
and Marine Corps are the first responders to international crises
through combat operations or humanitarian assistance. And after U.S.
ground forces have drawn down in the Middle East, the naval services
will remain on watch with offshore options to deter aggression and,
when necessary, fight and win on, over, and under the sea. Despite the
economic and military challenges facing our Nation, your Navy will
evolve and adapt to fight and win our Nation's wars, remain forward,
and be ready. I appreciate your continued support and look forward to
working together in pursuing our national security objectives.
THE NAVY HAS BEEN IMPORTANT TO OUR NATION'S SECURITY AND PROSPERITY
Today, our Navy is the world's pre-eminent maritime force but that
has not always been the case. Leading up to the War of 1812, Britain's
Royal Navy held that distinction. Our own fleet, lacking warfighting
capability, forward posture, and readiness, was bottled up in port
early in the war. It was unable to break the British blockade of the
Atlantic coast or stop the Royal Navy from wreaking havoc along the
mid-Atlantic seaboard and burning parts of Washington, DC in 1814. Our
Nation's economy suffered as shipping costs soared and imports from
Europe and the Caribbean grew scarce. Soon, however, the fleet
developed a warfighting focus and engaged the British, winning
victories on Lake Erie, at New Orleans, and in the Atlantic that,
combined with concerns about France, brought Britain to the negotiating
table. However, outside of a determined effort from privateers, the
U.S. Navy still could not project power away from home, could not
control the sea, and could not deter aggression against our interests.
We needed these key capabilities--outlined in our Maritime Strategy--
then, just as much as now. The War of 1812 offered a number of hard
lessons, and for the next century our Navy focused on preventing an
aggressor from restricting our trade or isolating us from the sea as
our Nation expanded across the North American continent.
Our Navy operated farther forward as our Nation's economy grew and,
by necessity, became more integrated with Eurasia. In the midst of the
world's first wave of globalization, the Great White Fleet from 1907 to
1909 demonstrated to the world America's emerging power and capability
to project it globally. These episodes of ``operating forward'' became
sustained during World War I as our Fleet convoyed supplies and forces
to Europe and combated German submarines across the Atlantic Ocean. And
in World War II, our Navy established dominance in the air, sea, and
undersea domains, going forward around the world to protect sea lanes
and project power to Europe and Africa, and take the fight across the
Pacific to Asia. We sustained our maritime dominance and remained
forward and global throughout the cold war to contain Soviet expansion
and provide tangible support to allies and partners with whom we were
highly interdependent diplomatically, economically, and militarily.
Our Navy today remains global, operating forward from U.S. bases
and international ``places'' around the world. From these ``places'' we
continue to support and operate with allies and partners who face a
range of challenges, from piracy and terrorism to aggressive neighbors
and natural disasters. ``Places'', from Guantanamo Bay to Singapore,
enable us to remain present or have access to the world's strategic
maritime crossroads--areas where shipping lanes, energy resources,
information networks, and security interests intersect. On any given
day over the last year, more than 50,000 sailors were underway or
deployed on 145 of the Navy's 285 ships and submarines, 100 of them
deployed overseas (see Figure 1). They were joined by more than 125
land-based patrol aircraft and helicopters, 1,000 information dominance
personnel, and more than 4,000 Naval Expeditionary Combat Command
sailors on the ground and in the littorals, building the ability of
partners to protect their people, resources, and territory.
Figure 1.
The security and prosperity of our Nation, and that of our friends
and allies, depend on the freedom of the seas, particularly at the
strategic maritime crossroads. Twenty percent of the world's oil flows
through the Strait of Hormuz, the center of a region where more than
12,000 sailors on 30 ships combat piracy, smuggling, terrorism, deter
Iranian aggression, and fly about 30 percent of the close air support
missions in Operation Enduring Freedom. These sailors directly
supported the special operations forces mission that resulted in the
death of Osama Bin Laden, provided ballistic missile defense to our
Arabian Gulf partners, and just last month rescued the crew of the
Iranian dhow, Al Morai, from Somali pirates. Our forces there depend on
facilities in Bahrain, a United States partner for more than 60 years,
for supplies, communications, and repairs, while our maritime patrol
and reconnaissance aircraft, patrol craft, and minesweepers in the
region are based on the island. Our forces at sea are joined by another
10,000 sailors on the ground, most supporting our combat forces in
Afghanistan as we continue to transition that effort to the Afghan
Government.
In the Asia-Pacific, about 40 percent of the world's trade passes
through the 1.7-mile wide Strait of Malacca, while the broader region
is home to 5 of our 7 treaty alliances and many of the world's largest
economies. About 50 United States ships are deployed in the Asia-
Pacific region every day, supported by facilities (or ``places'') in
Singapore, the Republic of Korea, and Japan in addition to our bases on
Guam. Our forward posture and ready-and-available capability proved
invaluable to our allies in Japan following the Great East Japan
earthquake and tsunami last March. Twenty-four ships, 140 aircraft and
more than 15,000 sailors and marines delivered more than 280 tons of
relief supplies to beleaguered survivors as part of Operation
Tomodachi. Working from offshore and unhindered by road and rail
damage, Navy efforts helped save lives and fostered a stronger
alliance.
Our combined readiness with our Pacific allies and partners is a
result of the nearly 170 exercises and training events we conduct in
the region each year. Our Talisman Sabre exercise with Australia last
year brought together 18 ships and more than 22,500 sailors and marines
to practice operations from maritime security to amphibious assault.
Our Malabar series of exercises continues to expand our
interoperability with India, a key partner in an important part of the
world. From simple maneuvers and replenishment-at-sea in 2002, Malabar
has gone on to include dual carrier flight operations, gunnery
practice, anti-submarine warfare (ASW) training, and maritime
interdiction exercises. And this year, the U.S. Navy will host Rim of
the Pacific (RIMPAC), the world's largest maritime exercise, bringing
together more than 20,000 sailors from 14 nations to practice the
entire range of maritime missions from counterpiracy to missile defense
and ASW.
Africa is adjacent to several key strategic crossroads:
--Bab El Mandeb on the southern end of the Red Sea;
--the Suez Canal at its northern end; and
--the Strait of Gibraltar at the western edge of the Mediterranean.
Events at each of these crossroads can significantly impact the global
economy and regional security. Supported by our air and port facilities
in Djibouti (Camp Lemonier), our ships form the backbone of
multinational forces from more than 20 nations that combat pirates and
terrorists around East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. In the
Mediterranean and Northern Africa our forward forces enabled a rapid
response to the Libyan civil war. During North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) Operations Odyssey Dawn and Unified Protector, our
ships and submarines fired 221 Tomahawk land attack missiles and
Growler electronic attack aircraft (EA-18G) redeployed from Iraq in
less than 48 hours to suppress and destroy Libya's air defense network.
The Navy-Marine Corps team aboard USS Kearsarge supported NATO forces
with air strikes and personnel recovery, while on USS Mount Whitney,
NATO leaders managed and coordinated the fight.
We continue our commitment to our NATO allies in the Mediterranean
and other waters around Europe. Supported by facilities in Rota, Spain;
Souda Bay, Greece; and Naples, Italy, our destroyers and cruisers
conducted, among other critical U.S. and NATO missions, continuous
ballistic missile defense patrols in the Mediterranean to counter the
growing Iranian ballistic missile threat. Europe also continues to be a
source of security. Our fleet trains routinely with allied navies from
the Mediterranean to the Baltic in security cooperation exercises such
as Proud Manta, NATO's largest ASW exercise. Outside the continent, we
operate with our European allies and partners to address our shared
concerns around the world, such as maintaining freedom of navigation
through the Strait of Hormuz, countering piracy around the Horn of
Africa, supporting our African partners with training and assistance,
and responding to crises such as the conflict in Libya.
In Latin America, the ongoing expansion of the Panama Canal will
increase the importance of that strategic maritime crossroad. Today,
the waters around Central America already experience a high level of
illegal trafficking, which could adversely affect the increasing volume
of shipping through an expanded canal. Our first littoral combat ship
(LCS), USS Freedom, made its first operational deployment to the region
in 2011, preventing more than 3 tons of cocaine from entering the
United States as part of Joint Interagency Task Force--South. We
leveraged our port and airfield in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to continue
supporting operations in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean. And as the
capability of our Latin American partners has grown, so has the
sophistication of our cooperation. In 2011, we conducted ASW training
with Brazil, Peru, Colombia, and Chile, where their diesel submarines
helped to train our surface and submarine crews and our crews,
exchanged lessons learned on effective undersea operations.
ESTABLISHING FIRST PRINCIPLES
These are challenging and dynamic times for the U.S. military
services and the U.S. national security enterprise. We need to remain
focused on our enduring principles and contributions that hold true
regardless of funding, force structure size or day-to-day world events.
Upon taking office as the CNO, I established these first principles for
Navy leaders to follow in my ``Sailing Directions''.
I believe historical and current events demonstrate that the Navy
is most effective and best able to support our national security
objectives when fleet leaders and sailors are focused on three tenets:
--warfighting first;
--operate forward; and
--be ready.
I incorporated these tenets into ``Sailing Directions''. Similar to
their nautical counterpart, my directions describe in general terms
where the Navy needs to go in the next 10-15 years, and the approach we
will take to get there. We applied ``Sailing Directions'' to the final
decisions we made in building our fiscal year 2013 budget submission,
and I believe they are consistent with the Defense Strategic Guidance
that emerged from our collaborative efforts with the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the President. I
am in the process of drafting a ``Navigation Plan'' to define our
course and speed now that our defense strategy is established and our
budget request submitted.
MY GUIDANCE FOR THE NAVY AND WHAT WE BELIEVE
We use these three tenets--warfighting first, operate forward, and
be ready--as ``lenses'' through which we view each decision as we
organize, train, and equip the Navy.
Warfighting First.--The Navy must be ready to fight and win today
while building the ability to win tomorrow. This is our primary mission
and all our efforts from the ``wardroom to the boardroom'' must be
grounded in this fundamental responsibility. The recent posturing and
rhetoric from Iran highlight the importance of our ability to deter
aggression, promptly respond to crisis, and deny any aggressors'
objectives. This requires getting relevant and effective warfighting
capability to the fleet today, not waiting for perfect solutions on
paper that may not arrive for 10 years. We can no longer afford,
strategically or fiscally, to let the perfect be the enemy of the
good--or the good enough--when it comes to critical warfighting
capability. Our history and the contemporary cases of Iran, North
Korea, violent extremists, and pirates show that conflict is unlikely
to appear in the form of the scenarios for which we traditionally plan.
Therefore, our ships, aircraft, and sailors that operate forward must
be able to decisively act and defeat an adversary's actions in situ to
deter continued aggression and preclude escalation. To that end, in our
fiscal year 2013 budget submission we shifted procurement, research and
development, and readiness funds toward weapons, systems, sensors, and
tactical training that can be rapidly fielded to the fleet, including
demonstrators and prototypes that can quickly improve our forces'
capability. I request that you support those investments.
Operate Forward.--The Navy-Marine Corps team provides the Nation
offshore options to deter, influence, and win in an era of uncertainty.
Our naval forces are at their best when they are forward, assuring
allies and building partnerships, deterring aggression without
escalation, defusing threats without fanfare, and containing conflict
without regional disruption. We keep the fleet forward through a
combination of rotational deployments from the United States, Forward
Deployed Naval Forces (FDNF) in Japan, Guam, and Italy, and forward
stationing ships in places such as Bahrain or Diego Garcia. Our ability
to operate forward depends on our U.S. bases and strategic partnerships
overseas that provide ``places'' where the Navy-Marine Corps team can
rest, repair, refuel, and resupply.
Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission supports several initiatives
to establish our forward posture including placing FDNF destroyers in
Rota, Spain, and forward stationing LCS in Singapore and patrol coastal
(PC) ships in Bahrain. We are also now collaborating with Headquarters
Marine Corps to determine the support and lift needed for marines to
effectively operate forward in Darwin, Australia. In the FDNF
construct, the ships, crews, and families all reside in the host
nation. This is in contrast to forward stationing, where the ship's
families reside in the United States and the crew rotates to the ship's
overseas location for deployment. We will rely on both of these basing
constructs and the ``places'' that support them to remain forward
without increases to the fleet's size. I request your support funding
for these initiatives so our Navy-Marine Corps team can continue
delivering the rapid response our Nation requires of us. We will
continue to pursue innovative concepts for operating forward such as
rotational crewing and employing new classes of ships such as joint
high speed vessels (JHSV), mobile landing platforms (MLP), and afloat
forward staging bases (AFSB).
Be Ready.--We will harness the teamwork, talent, and imagination of
our diverse force to be ready to fight and responsibly use our
resources. This is more than simply completing required maintenance and
ensuring parts and supplies are available. Those things are essential,
but ``being ready'' also means being proficient and confident in our
ability to use our weapons, employ and rely on our sensors, and operate
our command and control, communication, and engineering systems. This
requires practice, so in our fiscal year 2013 budget submission we
increased readiness and procurement funding for training deploying
personnel and for exercise ordnance--funding that I request you
support. Further, we are employing simulation and adjusting our Fleet
Readiness and Training Plan (FRTP) to afford more time to train prior
to deployment. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission provides the
opportunity to build on events such as this year's Bold Alligator, our
largest amphibious assault exercise in more than a decade, which
brought together more than 20,000 sailors and marines and 25 ships from
five nations. Fundamentally, being ready depends on our ability to
train, lead, and motivate our sailors and marines through events such
as Bold Alligator. As we continue to move through challenging times
strategically and fiscally, we will increasingly depend on their
resolve and imagination.
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 SHAPED BY THREE MAIN PRIORITIES
OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
The Budget Control Act of 2011 placed new constraints on our
budget, which required hard choices and prioritization to address. I
applied our tenets to my three main investment priorities as we built
our fiscal year 2013 budget submission to support the new Defense
Strategic Guidance.
Priority 1: Remain Ready To Meet Current Challenges, Today
Readiness means operational capability where it needs to be to
deter aggression, respond to crises, and win our Nation's wars. I will
continue to prioritize readiness over capacity and focus our
warfighting presence on the Asia Pacific and Middle East. Our fiscal
year 2013 decision to decommission seven Ticonderoga-class guided
missile cruisers (CG) and two dock landing ships (LSD) exemplify our
resolve to provide a more ready and sustainable fleet within our budget
constraints. The resources made available by these retirements will
allow increased funding for training and maintenance. To ensure these
investments improve readiness, we adjusted the FRTP to be more
sustainable and provide units adequate time to train, maintain, and
achieve the needed ``fit'' and ``fill'' in their manning between
deployments. The FRTP is aligned to and supports the fiscal year 2013
Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP), which is the
authoritative, Secretary of Defense-approved plan for supporting
combatant commander presence requirements.
A ready fleet requires proper maintenance of our ships and
aircraft, and our long-term force structure inventory plans require
each of them to affordably reach expected service life. Our fiscal year
2013 budget submission fully funds ship maintenance and midlife
modernization periods. We are also continuing a series of actions to
address surface ship material condition. We increased the number of
sailors in select surface ships and established Integrated Material
Assistance Teams to ensure adequate personnel for preventive
maintenance and at-sea repairs. To improve maintenance planning and
budgeting, the new surface ship life-cycle engineering and support
organization develops comprehensive plans for maintenance and
modernization of non-nuclear ships. These plans will allow us to refine
our assessments of ship material condition, improve our ability to
estimate maintenance costs, and identify actions needed to achieve
expected service life. These initiatives, supported in this budget
submission, have tangibly improved ship readiness and enable more
efficient maintenance periods. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission
also funds aircraft depot maintenance requirements to 94 percent,
meeting our goal for available airframes and engines.
Readiness involves more than material condition. Our capabilities
must also be ``whole'', meaning our weapons, combat systems, and
sensors must be able to interface with one another, are available in
adequate numbers, and our sailors are proficient and confident in their
use. We emphasized training in our fiscal year 2013 budget submission--
allocating time, ordnance, and targets for increased live-fire training
as well as funds to improve the fidelity, capacity, and
interoperability of our fleet simulators. Our fiscal year 2013 budget
submission also funds improved data links and radar reliability to
enhance the interoperability and availability of weapons and sensors.
In aviation, we fully funded the Flying Hour Program and invested in F/
A-18 A-F life-cycle sustainment and system capability upgrades to
ensure these ``workhorses'' of the carrier air wing remain ready and
relevant. F/A-18 A-F sustainment helps ensure our strike fighters reach
their expected service lives and our strike fighter inventory remains
sufficient to meet anticipated needs. Ashore, we fully funded air and
port operations and nuclear weapons infrastructure and security. Our
fiscal year 2013 budget submission accepts some risk in facilities
sustainment and recapitalization, but we anticipate minimal impact on
fleet readiness. We will continue to closely monitor our shore
infrastructure to ensure it remains capable of supporting the needed
level of fleet operations. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission
maintains funding for Homeport Ashore to provide quality housing for
our single sailors and increases funding for family readiness programs
such as child development centers.
We must continue improving our fuel efficiency to sustain a ready
and relevant fleet and our goal remains to reduce our tactical energy
use 15 percent by 2020. We will combine modernization, research and
development, acquisition, and efficient behavior by operators at sea
and on the waterfront to achieve that goal. Our fiscal year 2013 budget
submission continues to incorporate technological advances
incrementally, but steadily. Our Lewis and Clark-class supply ships now
employ all-electric propulsion, as will our new Zumwalt-class
destroyers (DDG). Our new hybrid-electric powered amphibious assault
ship USS Makin Island saved more than $2 million in fuel costs on its
maiden voyage from the gulf coast to its San Diego homeport. The
insights we gain from these efforts will be applied in developing
requirements for future ships, where energy usage was established last
year as a key performance parameter.
Priority 2: Build a Relevant and Capable Future Force
Our Navy will evolve to remain the world's pre-eminent maritime
force in the face of emerging threats and our shipbuilding and aircraft
construction investments form the foundation of the future fleet. In
developing our aircraft and ship procurement plans, we focused on three
approaches:
--sustaining serial production of today's proven platforms;
--rapidly fielding new platforms in development; and
--improving the capability of today's platforms through new payloads
of weapons, sensors, and unmanned vehicles.
First, sustained production of today's platforms maintains the
fleet's capacity, improves the affordability of ships and aircraft, and
fosters the health of the industrial base. Examples of this serial
investment in our fiscal year 2013 budget submission include Arleigh
Burke DDG, MH-60R/S Seahawk helicopters, F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet and
Virginia-class submarines (SSN). These proven ships and aircraft
represent a known quantity to both the Government and contractor and
provide opportunities for cost savings through multiyear procurement.
Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission requests multiyear procurement
of nine Arleigh Burke DDGs and nine Virginia SSNs. Your support for
continued block purchases of DDGs and SSNs is essential to our fleet's
capacity over the next decade when decommissionings and the procurement
of the new ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) combine to reduce the
number of these fleet workhorses. In addition to the capacity they
bring, our experience with proven platforms also allows us to
incrementally improve their capabilities with new weapons, sensors, and
unmanned vehicles, such as we are doing with Arleigh Burke DDG by
adding the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP), SM-6
missile, Advanced Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), and MQ-8 Firescout
unmanned air vehicles.
Second, we will rapidly field the classes of ships and aircraft in
development which are needed to recapitalize the fleet and pace
emerging threats. Each of these platforms are nearing completion or are
in initial production and offer a significant return on our research
and development investment over the past 2 decades. We will harvest
this return and focus on capability improvement via new weapons,
sensors, and unmanned systems before we begin our next generation of
platforms. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission prudently moves into
sustained production of Freedom and Independence-class LCS, MQ-4C broad
area maritime surveillance (BAMS) unmanned air system (UAS), Poseidon
maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft (P-8A) and Lightning II
strike fighter (F-35C). We slowed production of the F-35C to allow
lessons from testing to be better incorporated into the aircraft, and
it will be a key element of the future carrier air wing. The fiscal
year 2013 budget submission continues funding for Gerald R. Ford
aircraft carriers (CVN), although the delivery of CVN-79 was delayed to
most cost effectively maintain our fleet of 11 CVNs by not delivering
the ship ahead of need. Our budget submission continues funding for the
Zumwalt-class DDG, which will provide an exceptional improvement in
littoral and land-attack capability while also proving several new
technologies to be incorporated into future ships. To sustain our
capacity for amphibious operations, our fiscal year 2013 budget
submission funds continued production of the America-class amphibious
assault ships (LHA), the first of which (LHA-6) is nearing completion.
Each of these new platforms is designed to be adaptable and allow
future capability evolution through new payloads. The physical and
electronic open architecture of LCS, for example, will allow it to
change missions in a short refit, but will also allow it to be widely
adaptable over its lifetime. The P-8A has a similar reserve capacity
for adaptation, as well as an operating profile which will allow it to
do a wide range of missions, depending on the weapons and sensors
placed aboard.
And third, we will evolve the force to maintain our warfighting
edge by exploiting the ability of new payloads to dramatically change
what our existing ships and aircraft can do. A focus on what our
platforms carry will be increasingly important as anti-access/area-
denial (A2/AD) threats including new radars and more sophisticated
surface-to-air and anti-ship missiles limit the ability of manned
platforms to get close to an adversary in wartime. Our Air-Sea Battle
concept, developed with the Marine Corps and the Air Force, describes
our response to these growing A2/AD threats. This concept emphasizes
the ability of new weapons, sensors, and unmanned systems to expand the
reach, capability, and persistence of our current manned ships and
aircraft. Our focus on payloads also allows more rapid evolution of our
capabilities compared to changing the platform itself. This approach is
exemplified by our fiscal year 2013 investment in LCS, which will carry
an adaptable portfolio of unmanned vehicles, weapons, manned
helicopters, and personnel. In aviation, new weapons such as the small
diameter bomb, joint standoff weapon and Mark-54 torpedo will give our
legacy aircraft the stand-off range, penetration, and lethality to
defeat adversaries even if they employ advanced A2/AD capabilities.
Our focus on payloads includes unmanned systems such as the
Firescout UAS (MQ-8B), which already demonstrated in Libya and the
Middle East how it can add significant capability to our legacy
frigates (FFG) and amphibious transport dock (LPD) ships. Our fiscal
year 2013 budget submission continues production of the MQ-8B and adds
the longer-range, higher-payload MQ-8C. The submission also continues
our investment in the unmanned combat air system (UCAS) demonstrator
and the follow-on unmanned carrier launched air surveillance and strike
(UCLASS) system, which will expand the reach and persistence of our
current carrier-based air wings.
Improved sensors and new unmanned systems are essential to our
continued domination of the undersea environment. Our fiscal year 2013
budget submission funds the development of Virginia SSN payload modules
that will be able to carry a mix of missiles, sensors, and unmanned
undersea vehicles (UUV) such as the new Large Displacement UUV. These
undersea systems are joined by investments in the P-8A and Arleigh
Burke DDG to improve cueing and close-in ASW operations. Our undersea
superiority provides U.S. forces an asymmetric advantage in being able
to project power or impose unacceptable costs on adversaries. Our
fiscal year 2013 budget submission funds continued development of a new
SSBN to begin replacing the Ohio-class late in the next decade and
sustain the most survivable element of the Nation's nuclear triad. Our
fiscal year 2013 budget submission also includes funding to study the
possible use of Ohio-class guided missile submarine (SSGN) and
Virginia-class SSN as platforms for a future conventional prompt strike
capability.
While we currently dominate the undersea domain, cyberspace, and
the electromagnetic spectrum present a different set of challenges and
a lower barrier to entry for our potential adversaries. Our fiscal year
2013 budget submission furthers our goal to operate effectively in
cyberspace and fully exploit the electromagnetic spectrum. Investments
including SEWIP, EA-18G, Consolidated Afloat Network Enterprise System
(CANES), Hawkeye (E-2D) early-warning aircraft, Next-Generation
Enterprise Network and Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) support
development of a common operational picture of cyberspace and the
electromagnetic spectrum. They also support robust defense of our
networks and improve our ability to use nonkinetic effects to defend
our ships from attack, conduct offensive operations, and conduct
superior command and control.
It is imperative as we pursue these three approaches to the future
force that we consider both affordability and ``jointness.'' Our fiscal
situation makes affordability essential to sustaining the fleet's
capacity and improving its capability. Working with the Secretary of
the Navy's staff, we are ensuring cost is considered as an entering
assumption in developing requirements for new systems, while
controlling the ``requirements creep'' that impacts the cost of our
programs already in development. Joint capabilities may also be a way
to improve affordability, although we are primarily concerned with how
they can improve our warfighting effectiveness. Our Air-Sea Battle
concept describes how naval and air forces will develop and field
capabilities in a more integrated manner to allow them to defeat
improving A2/AD threats through tightly coordinated operations across
warfighting domains. Using the Air-Sea Battle concept and Joint
Operational Access Concept (JOAC) as the starting point, the Navy-
Marine Corps team will continue to expand our integration with the Air
Force and Army in doctrine, systems, training, and exercises to sustain
the ability of U.S. forces to project power.
Priority 3: Enable and Support our Sailors, Navy Civilians, and Their
Families
Today's active and reserve sailors and Navy civilians are the most
highly trained, motivated, and educated force we have ever employed.
Our people are the source of our warfighting capability, and our fiscal
year 2013 budget submission continues the investments needed to ably
lead, equip, train, and motivate them.
Our personnel programs deliver a high return on investment in the
readiness of our sailors and civilians. We fully funded our programs to
address operational stress, support families, prevent suicides,
eliminate the use of synthetic drugs like Spice, and aggressively
reduce the number of sexual assaults. I view each of these challenges
as safety and readiness concerns that can be just as damaging to our
warfighting capability as operational accidents and mishaps. To ensure
sailors and their families have a quality environment in which to live,
we sustained our support for quality housing, including Homeport Ashore
for Sailors, and expanded our child development and youth programs.
Our wounded warriors are a top priority. Our fiscal year 2013
budget submission fully funds programs that support the mental,
emotional, and financial well-being of our returning warriors and their
families.
The Navy continues to face a unique manpower challenge. Retention
is high, attrition remains steady at a very low level, and highly
qualified people continue to want to join the service. To continue
bringing in new sailors with new and diverse backgrounds and ideas, we
must have turnover in the force. To manage our end strength, sustain
upward mobility, and address overmanning in some specialties, we
selected 2,947 sailors for separation in 2012 by conducting an Enlisted
Retention Board (ERB). These sailors served honorably and we are now
focused on providing the best transition possible for them, including
early retirement for sailors selected for ERB who will have completed
at least 15 years of active service as of September 1, 2012. Thank you
for providing this Temporary Early Retirement Authority in the fiscal
year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. We do not plan another
ERB for fiscal year 2013. Nor do we plan to offer early retirement more
broadly, but we will evaluate this option if overmanning in individual
specialty ratings/warfare communities again becomes a concern.
We will continue to use a range of force shaping tools to ensure we
keep our best performers and align our people with needed skills and
specialties. Perform-to-Serve (PTS), our centralized re-enlistment
program, will remain the principal method to shape the force. While in
some cases we will be unable to offer re-enlistment for sailors due to
high retention and overmanning, PTS also offers sailors the opportunity
to change specialties or enter the reserves when they come up for re-
enlistment if their current specialty is overmanned. We will continue
to offer and regularly adjust selective re-enlistment bonuses and
incentive pays for critical specialties to ensure we properly sustain
the skills required in the force.
By managing the size and composition of the force, we are able to
bring in new sailors and civilians. Our fiscal year 2013 budget
submission continues to invest in recruiting quality people, including
diversity outreach and programs to develop science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics candidates for the service. Our future
depends on the innovation and creativity that people with diverse
backgrounds, experience, and ideas can bring to the Navy.
department of defense and navy's turning point--and the need for a new
STRATEGY
We built our fiscal year 2013 budget submission by applying the
tenets of warfighting first, operate forward, and be ready to our three
enduring priorities. This approach focused our resources on investments
that are most important to the Navy's ability to be relevant to the
challenges we face as a Nation. Today, three main trends place America
and our Navy at a turning point. First, the Federal Government has to
get its fiscal house in order by reducing deficits and putting the
Federal budget on a path toward balance. Second, the security
environment around the world is becoming more dynamic as exemplified by
the ``Arab Awakening,'' ongoing piracy and terrorism, and the continued
threat of aggression from countries including Iran and North Korea.
Third, after a decade of war in the Middle East, we are completing
ground operations and stabilization efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This confluence of factors was emerging when I wrote my sailing
directions and, as they clarified, were the drivers behind the
``Defense Strategic Guidance Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership:
Priorities for 21st Century Defense'' issued by the President and
Secretary of Defense. The Defense Strategic Guidance was developed in a
collaborative and transparent process, and I believe it is aligned with
sailing directions. The guidance calls for a more agile, lethal, and
flexible force to address the challenges and opportunities facing our
Nation and has clear implications for the Navy as a force provider,
including:
Emphasize Readiness Over Capacity
We will not let the force become ``hollow'' by having more force
structure than we can afford to maintain, equip, and man. Our fiscal
year 2013 budget submission inactivates seven Ticonderoga CGs and two
LSDs. These ships were in need of significant maintenance investment
and 6 of the 7 cruisers required further investment to install
ballistic missile defense capability. Inactivating these ships allowed
almost $2 billion in readiness funding to be shifted to other portions
of the fleet. This reduction in capacity and our shift to a more
sustainable deployment model will result in some reductions to the
amount of presence we provide overseas in some select areas, or a
change in the nature of that presence to favor innovative and lower-
cost approaches.
Invest in Current Warfighting Capability
Our ability to deter aggression rests on our current warfighting
capability. During the final stages of developing our fiscal year 2013
budget submission, we worked closely with the Office of the Secretary
of Defense to shift more than $700 million into procurement, operations
and maintenance, and research and development to rapidly improve the
readiness of warfighting capabilities being deployed to the Middle East
and Asia-Pacific. These changes focused on countering A2/AD threats
through mine warfare (MIW), integrated air and missile defense,
antisurface warfare (ASuW) against fast attack craft and ASW. Our
investments included training targets and ordnance, mine warfare
maintenance and prototype systems, antisurface and ASW sensors and
weapons, and kinetic and nonkinetic systems for self-defense against
torpedoes, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.
Maintain Middle East Presence and Rebalance our Focus Toward Asia-
Pacific
The Asia-Pacific and Middle East are the most consequential regions
for our future security and prosperity. Two factors drive the Navy's
ability to provide presence: The size of the fleet and the amount of
time ships can remain deployed. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission
reduces the size of the fleet in the next year by decommissioning some
ships, but the fleet returns to its current size by 2017 and grows to
about 300 ships by 2019. We will work with the Joint Staff and
Secretary of Defense's office to focus our presence on the Middle East
and Asia-Pacific as part of the GFMAP. The mix of ships in the fleet
between now and 2020 will evolve to include more small combatants and
support vessels that can provide innovative, low-cost platforms for
security cooperation and partnership building activities in Latin
America and Africa. This will enable our carriers, large surface
combatants, submarines, and amphibious ships to focus on the Middle
East, Asia-Pacific, and Europe.
As described above, we are fostering a series of bases and
``places'' with our allies and partners around the world to provide
access and support forward operations at the strategic maritime
crossroads. Some of these facilities will host FDNF or forward
stationed ships and aircraft, while others will extend the range and
duration of deployments by providing places to rest, repair, refuel,
and resupply. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission includes funding
to support these facilities, while we are studying options for
rotational crewing which may allow overseas ``places'' to host crew
exchanges for additional classes of ships such as we plan to do for
LCSs and currently conduct for PCs, SSGNs, and mine countermeasures
ships (MCMs).
Develop Innovative, Low-Cost, and Small Footprint Approaches to
Partnerships
The United States will continue to be the security partner of
choice, and the Navy will tailor our partnership efforts to be both
affordable and appropriate. The evolution of the Fleet's mix over the
next 8 years will provide ships suited to cooperative operations such
as maritime security; building partner capacity; countering terrorism,
illegal trafficking and proliferation; and providing humanitarian
assistance/disaster response (HA/DR). Ships including LCS (with ASuW
mission packages), JHSV, MLP, AFSB, hospital ships (T-AH) and combat
logistics force ships will provide platforms to conduct the low-cost,
small footprint missions called for in the Defense Strategic Guidance.
These ships will free up higher-end combatants for other missions and
will employ innovative crewing concepts such as civilian mariners and
rotational military crews that will provide more time forward per ship.
OUR FISCAL YEAR 2013 INVESTMENTS SUPPORT THE DEPARTMENT'S MOST
IMPORTANT MISSIONS
Within the fiscal constraints of the Budget Control Act of 2011, we
applied our priorities and tenets to develop our fiscal year 2013
budget submission, which strongly supports the missions described the
new Defense Strategic Guidance.
Counterterrorism and Irregular Warfare
We will support the joint force in an active approach to countering
terrorist and extremist threats. With the drawdown in Afghanistan and
sensitivity to U.S. forces ashore, these efforts will increasingly be
conducted from the sea. The Navy's fiscal year 2013 budget submission
increases our ability to support these operations through investments
including the sea-based MQ-8B and longer-range, higher-payload MQ-8C
UAS, MLP, AFSB, LCS, BAMS, tailored language and culture training, and
increases in SEAL manning. Places including Djibouti, Singapore,
Bahrain, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba will continue to support small-
footprint, long-duration operations to counter illegal activities--
including terrorism, piracy, and trafficking--from the Horn of Africa
and Arabian Gulf to the South China Sea and the Caribbean.
Deter and Defeat Aggression
The Navy-Marine Corps team is the Nation's front line to deny an
aggressor's objectives or promptly impose costs on the aggressor. Naval
forces bring two essential qualities to this mission: Presence or
prompt access forward where conflict occurs, and credible warfighting
capability to counter the aggressor. Our fiscal year 2013 budget
submission supports forward operations at the places where conflict is
most likely or consequential--the strategic maritime crossroads. In
addition to the readiness and operations funding that allow our forces
to operate forward, our fiscal year 2013 budget submission also invests
in establishing FDNF DDGs in Rota, Spain, forward-stationed LCSs in
Singapore, additional forward stationed PCs in Bahrain and a
sustainable tempo of rotational deployments.
Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission improves the warfighting
capability of the forces we send forward. The centerpieces of naval
capability remain the Carrier Strike Group and Amphibious Ready Group.
Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission sustains funding for CVNs and
the strike fighters (F-35C and F/A-18 E/F), E-2Ds, and EA-18Gs they
deliver to the fight, as well as the unmanned NUCAS and UCLASS aircraft
that will expand the reach and persistence of the future air wing. To
complement our aviation capabilities, our fiscal year 2013 submission
funds a ``big deck'' LHA in fiscal year 2017 to support power
projection by Marine Air-Ground Task Forces. These ships, aircraft,
sailors, and marines have deterred and defeated aggression since World
War II and will continue to do so well into the future.
Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission invests in capabilities to
counter specific types of aggression, such as Iranian threats to deny
access to the Strait of Hormuz through mine warfare. While we develop
the LCS as the future host of MIW capabilities, our fiscal year 2013
budget submission invests in sonar upgrades and maintenance for our
current MCMs, new mine detection and neutralization UUVs, establishment
of an AFSB in the Arabian Gulf to support air and surface MIW
operations, and sea-based intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission also funds ASW
improvements geared toward the Iranian threat such as air-launched
Mark-54 torpedoes and torpedo defense systems, as well as ASuW weapons
to counter fast attack craft such as Griffin and Spike missiles for PCs
and rockets for helicopters.
Project Power Despite A2/AD Challenges
Potential adversaries are mounting strategies to prevent U.S.
forces from entering their theater (anti-access) or operating
effectively once within the theater (area-denial). These adversaries
intend to prevent U.S. forces from defeating their aggression or coming
to the aid of allies and partners. Both state and nonstate actors are
undertaking these strategies using capabilities including mines,
submarines, anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, anti-satellite
weapons, cyber attack, and communications jamming. The Navy fiscal year
2013 budget submission addresses these threats through a wide range of
investments that support the multiservice Air-Sea Battle concept and
the Joint Operational Access Concept (JOAC). In addition to the MIW,
ASuW and ASW investments identified above, our fiscal year 2013 budget
submission funds upgrades in electronic warfare (EW), integrated fire
control, cyber operations, networks, Virginia SSN and payload modules,
and the F-35C.
The Navy's ability to retain access to international waters and
airspace as well as critical chokepoints throughout the world would be
enhanced by accession to UNCLOS. As the world's pre-eminent maritime
power, the United States has much to gain from the legal certainty and
global order brought by UNCLOS. The United States should not rely on
customs and traditions for the legal basis of our military and
commercial activity when we can instead use a formal mechanism such as
UNCLOS. As a party to UNCLOS, we will be in a better position to
counter the efforts of coastal nations to restrict freedom of the seas.
Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction
The Navy's primary contribution to countering weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) is interdicting WMD and their precursors through the
international Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Our fiscal year
2013 budget submission funds the readiness and force structure
necessary to maintain forces forward at the strategic maritime
crossroads where these interdictions are most common, while continuing
to enable PSI by sustaining the command and control and sensors needed
to find and track WMD transporters.
Operate Effectively in Space and Cyberspace
As a forward-deployed force, our fleet is highly dependent upon
space-based systems, cyberspace, and the electromagnetic spectrum.
Naval forces rely on long-haul communications for command and control,
positioning, navigation and timing, and administration. Given the
growing A2/AD threat from communications jamming and anti-satellite
weapons, our fiscal year 2013 budget submission includes investment in
the maritime portion of the Joint Airborne Layer Network, a UAV-based
system to assure our ability to communicate and conduct command and
control.
Cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum are a key area of
emphasis for our future force development. In the past 2 years, we made
significant investments in personnel for Navy Cyber Command/Tenth Fleet
as well as U.S. Cyber Command, which continue in our fiscal year 2013
budget submission. These highly skilled operators are developing a
``common operational picture'' (COP) of cyberspace and the tools to
effectively defend our interests within it. Cyberspace and the
electromagnetic spectrum are inextricably linked, and in our fiscal
year 2013 budget submission, we fund a range of EW and electronic
support systems including EA-18G, SEWIP, Next-Generation Jammer,
shipboard prototype and demonstrator systems, Ship Signal Exploitation
Equipment (SSEE), and the E-2D. These systems sustain our ability
exploit the electromagnetic spectrum for sensing and communication,
while denying our adversaries accurate or effective information. We are
also developing the conceptual and doctrinal framework to fully exploit
the electromagnetic spectrum as a warfighting domain.
Maintain a Safe, Secure, and Effective Nuclear Deterrent
The Navy provides the most survivable leg of the U.S. nuclear triad
with the SSBN and associated nuclear command and control, maintenance,
and support infrastructure. Our fiscal year 2013 program continues to
fund the recapitalization of our Ohio-class submarines and the safe
handling of Trident D-5 missiles through investment in an additional
explosive handling wharf at Naval Base Kitsap. Consistent with the
Defense Strategic Guidance, we delayed the Ohio replacement program by
2 years. This delay will result in an SSBN force of 10 ships in the
2030s and will require a high state of readiness to meet the Nation's
strategic deterrence needs. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission
fully funds the maintenance and support to today's Ohio-class SSBNs to
help maximize their operational availability throughout their service
lives.
Homeland Defense and Support to Civil Authorities
We maintain approximately 45 ships underway around the United
States and another 50 available within days to meet U.S. Northern
Command's homeland defense requirements through our FRTP. The Navy's
fiscal year 2013 budget submission also funds DDG modernization that
can support homeland ballistic and cruise missile defense missions.
Provide a Stabilizing Presence; Conduct Counterinsurgency, Humanitarian
Assistance/Disaster Relief and Other Operations
Although our warfighting capability will be focused on the Middle
East and Asia-Pacific, other regions will retain naval presence. The
nature of that presence, however, will change over the next several
years. While today DDGs and amphibious ships conduct security
cooperation operations with partners in Latin America and Africa, our
fiscal year 2013 budget submission funds procurement of JHSV, AFSB,
MLP, and LCS and sustainment of PCs and T-AHs to take on these missions
in the future. To support an expanding range of partnership missions,
they will increasingly carry tailored force packages of marines to
conduct security cooperation activities with partner armies and
marines.
These same ships will support humanitarian assistance operations
and rapid response by U.S. forces to crisis or disaster. They can
embark a wide range of interagency and nongovernmental personnel,
allowing them to support the whole range of development, defense and
diplomacy activities, and contribute to nonmilitary efforts to counter
insurgencies and conduct stabilization operations. As naval forces,
they can be backed up by the robust multimission capability and
transportation capacity of amphibious ships and embarked marines.
EVALUATING IMPACTS OF THE NEW DEFENSE STRATEGIC GUIDANCE
The new Defense Strategic Guidance is not without risk. In
particular, we will need to assess the impacts of capacity reductions
on the force's ability to address highly likely or highly consequential
security challenges. Senior defense leaders are conducting this
assessment in a series of seminars over the next several months. Within
the Navy, we are also re-evaluating our force structure requirements in
light of the Defense Strategic Guidance. We are assessing the
capabilities needed to implement the strategy, what force structure
could deliver those capabilities, and the resulting inventory of ships
and aircraft that will be required. The results of this assessment will
indicate the risk in the ability of the Navy's investment plans to
implement the Defense Strategic Guidance. The force structure
assessment will also indicate what ships should be counted as part of
the battle force, and the extent to which the Navy will need to
implement innovative concepts such as rotational crewing to deliver the
needed level of forward presence.
We will also evaluate the impact of our investment plans on our
industrial base, including ship and aircraft builders, depot
maintenance facilities, equipment and weapons manufacturers, and
science and technology researchers. Some of our suppliers, especially
in specialized areas such as nuclear power, have the government as
their only customer. Our fiscal year 2013 budget submission addresses
the health of the industrial base, and we will work closely with our
industry partners to manage the risk of any further budget reductions.
Ship inactivations in the fiscal year 2013 budget submission, when
combined with those of previous budgets, may cause an imbalance in the
Fleet's overall distribution. We are assessing what will be affordable
and appropriate in homeporting new ships or moving existing ships to
ensure we efficiently employ our shore infrastructure, balance our port
loading, and take advantage of collocating ships with common
configurations and equipment.
The healthcare proposals in the President's budget are consistent
with our efforts over the last several years to pursue a multipronged
strategy to control the rate of growth in defense health costs:
--identifying more efficient processes internally;
--incentivizing healthy behaviors and wellness; and
--keeping our sailors and marines fit and ready to deploy.
This budget maintains our commitment to those who serve and have
served, and responsibly meets the demands dictated by Federal budget
constraints. I hope you will agree, and support our efforts. I also
support the establishment of a commission to study changes to the
structure and benefits of our retirement program for those who have not
yet entered the service. That assessment must include an evaluation of
the combined impact to our future recruiting and retention of changes
to retirement benefits, pay, and healthcare.
CONCLUSION
I believe the risks of the new Defense Strategic Guidance are
manageable and can be mitigated with good management of the joint
force. Our Navy will continue to be critical to our Nation's security
and prosperity by assuring access to the global commons and being at
the front line of our Nation's efforts in war and peace. I assure the
Congress, the American people, and those who would seek to do our
Nation harm, that we will be focused on warfighting, operating forward,
and being ready.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
General Amos.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES F. AMOS, COMMANDANT, UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS
General Amos. Madam Chairman, Vice Chairman Cochran, and
members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to speak today on
behalf of your United States Marine Corps.
As we sit today in this chamber, 30,000 marines are forward
deployed around the world defending our Nation's liberty,
shaping strategic environments, engaging our partners and
allies, and ensuring freedom of the seas while they deter
aggression.
Over the past year alone, the forward presence and crisis
response of America's marines, working in concert with our most
important joint partner, the United States Navy, has created
opportunities and provided decision space for our Nation's
leaders.
Your marines were first on the scene to provide
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in Japan in the
aftermath of last year's monumental natural disasters and the
first to fly air strikes over Libya. They evacuated
noncombatants from Tunisia and reinforced our embassies in
Egypt, Yemen, and Bahrain. While accomplishing all of that,
your Corps continued to conduct sustained combat and
counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan.
Having just returned a little more than 3 weeks ago from
visiting many of the nearly 20,000 marines and sailors
currently deployed there, I can tell you firsthand that their
professionalism and morale remain notably strong. There is an
indomitable spirit displayed in all that they do. Their best
interests and the needs of all our joint forces in combat
remain my number-one priority.
History has shown that it is impossible to predict where,
when, and how America's interests will be threatened.
Regardless of the global economic strain placed on governments
and their military forces today, crises requiring military
intervention will undoubtedly continue tomorrow and in the
years to come.
As a maritime Nation dependent on the sea for the free
exchange of ideas and trade, America requires security both at
home and abroad. To maintain a strong economy, to access
overseas markets, and to assure our allies, in an era of fiscal
constraint, the United States Marine Corps is our Nation's risk
mitigator, a certain force during uncertain times, one that
will be the most ready when the Nation is the least ready.
There is a cost to maintaining this capability, but it is
nominal in the context of the total defense budget and provides
true value to the American taxpayer. This fiscal year, I am
asking the Congress for $30.8 billion, a combination of both
base and overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding.
Your continued support will fund ongoing operations around
the world, provide quality resources for our marines, our
sailors, and their families. It will reset the equipment that
is worn out from more than 10 years at war, and lastly, it will
posture our forces for the future.
When the Nation pays the sticker price for its marines, it
buys the ability to respond to crises anywhere in the world
through forward deployed and forward engaged forces. This same
force can be reinforced quickly to project power and contribute
to joint assured access anywhere in the world in the event of a
major contingency. No other force possesses the flexibility and
organic sustainment to provide these capabilities.
As our Nation begins to direct its attention to the
challenges and opportunities of a post-Afghanistan world, a
world where the Middle East and the Pacific take center stage,
the United States Marine Corps will be ever mindful of the
traditional friction points in other regions and prepared to
respond accordingly as needed.
The strategic guidance directs that we rebalance and reset
for the future. We have a solid plan to do so, and we have
begun execution already. As we execute a strategic pivot, I
have made it a priority to keep faith with those who have
served during the past 10 years of war.
Through judicious choices and forward planning, ever
mindful of the economy in which we live, we have built a
quality force that meets the needs of our Nation. By the end of
fiscal year 2016, your United States Marine Corps will be
streamlined down to 182,100 marines. This active-duty force
will be complemented by the diverse depth of our operational
reserve component that will remain at 39,600 strong.
Our emerging United States Marine Corps will be optimized
for forward presence, engagement, and rapid crisis response. It
will be enhanced by critical enablers, special operators, and
cyber warfare marines, all necessary on the modern battlefield.
To build down the United States Marine Corps from its
current end strength of 202,000, I will need the assistance of
the Congress for the fiscal resources necessary to execute the
drawdown at a measured and responsible pace of approximately
5,000 marines a year, a rate that guards against a precipitous
reduction that would be harmful to our force.
PREPARED STATEMENT
As we continue to work with our Nation's leadership and my
fellow joint partners, you have my assurance that your United
States Marine Corps will be ever faithful in meeting our
Nation's need for an expeditionary force in readiness, a force
that can respond to today's crises with today's force today.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Madam Chairwoman and fellow members, I look forward to your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of General James F. Amos
THE INDOMITABLE SPIRIT OF THE U.S. MARINE
Your Marines are Ready Today
We remain a Nation at war. Currently, nearly 20,000 marines are
conducting combat operations in Afghanistan. Operation Enduring Freedom
(OEF) remains our top priority. Having recently returned from visiting
marines and sailors currently deployed throughout Central Command, I am
pleased to report their professionalism and morale remains notably
strong. Whether patrolling in Afghanistan or planning at the Pentagon,
serving on Navy amphibious warships or engaging our partners around the
world, the indomitable spirit of our greatest asset, the individual
marine, stands ready--ready to safeguard our Nation's liberty, to
ensure freedom of the seas, and to protect our Nation's interests
abroad. With your assistance, we will continue to resource this
National Treasure . . . the U.S. marine.
2011 Operational Highlights
During the past year, marines have conducted counterinsurgency
operations in Afghanistan and have responded to a rapid succession of
unpredicted political upheavals, natural disasters, social unrest,
piracy, and emerging threats in various unstable areas of the world's
littoral regions.
Operation Enduring Freedom
We are seeing measurable progress along all lines of operation in
the Helmand Province:
--security;
--reintegration;
--rule of law;
--governance;
--development;
--education; and
--health.
Over the past year, violence and the level of collateral damage
have decreased significantly. Throughout 2012, marines in Regional
Command-Southwest (RC(SW)) will continue transitioning to partnership
training missions as we transfer even greater security responsibility
to the maturing Afghan national security forces; police and army forces
in Helmand Province have progressed in training and capability. There
is a strong sense of optimism among our forces in Helmand Province.
Operation Tomodachi
Following a devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan last
spring, 3,600 marines and sailors from our amphibious forces in the
Pacific responded within 24-hour notice. They served as the lead
element of the joint force, delivered humanitarian aid (i.e. 500 tons
of food and supplies; 2,150,000 gallons of water; and 51,000 gallons of
fuel), rescued those in danger, provided consequence management, and
facilitated the evacuation of almost 8,000 American citizens. For weeks
following this disaster, Marine aircrews flew through a radioactive
environment to save lives, deliver aid, and assist the afflicted.
Operation Unified Protector/Odyssey Dawn
Amidst a wave of civil turmoil spreading across Northern Africa,
two amphibious warships with embarked marines sped to the Mediterranean
and took up station off the coast of Libya. The 26th Marine
Expeditionary Unit (MEU), an air-ground-logistics task force, provided
our Nation's leaders invaluable decision time that allowed the
determination of a way ahead and later integration with the joint force
with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to enforce a no-fly zone.
Marine aviation assets were an important component of the joint force.
Short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) Harriers, operating from
USS Kearsarge, conducted the first precision airstrikes and provided
airborne command and control. Our KC-130Js evacuated noncombatant
foreign nationals repatriating them to their homeland, and our MV-22B
Ospreys rescued a downed American aviator using unprecedented
operational reach.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The MV-22B Osprey rescue of an American combat aviator on March
22, 2011, was conducted within 95 minutes over a distance of 300
nautical miles (from launch aboard amphibious shipping to recovery of
pilot and then back to shipping).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security Cooperation
In 2011, we supported all six geographic combatant commands with
task-organized forces of marines who conducted hundreds of security
cooperation (SC) activities with the Armed Forces of more than 75
countries. Aligned with Defense Strategic Guidance to ``develop
innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches to achieve our
security objectives, relying on exercises, rotational presence and
advisory capabilities'', our SC missions focus on internal defense and
participation in coalition operations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century
Defense, January 2012, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Embassy Reinforcement
We continue providing security for 154 U.S. Embassies and
consulates in 137 countries around the world through the Marine Corps
Embassy Security Group. To augment this mission, marines from our Fleet
Anti-Terrorism Security Teams rapidly deployed to reinforce Embassies.
This past year they deployed to protect American lives and property in
Bahrain, Egypt, and Yemen as crisis events unfolded across the Middle
East.
The New Strategic Guidance; How Your Marine Corps is Changing
New strategic guidance issued by the President and the Secretary of
Defense provides the framework by which the Marine Corps will balance
the demands of the future security environment with the realities of
our current budget. The guidance calls for a future force that will
``remain capable across the spectrum of missions, fully prepared to
deter and defeat aggression, and to defend the homeland and our allies
in a complex security environment''.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century
Defense, Fact Sheet, January 5, 2012 p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have built a quality force that is fully capable of executing
its assigned missions. Our strategic guidance rightfully focuses our
attention on the Pacific and Central Command regions. Navy-Marine Corps
forward basing, response capabilities, and plans are already positioned
to support that strategy, yet we will remain vigilant and capable to
respond on short notice in other areas of the world as the Nation
requires. Marines continually stand ready to contribute decisively to a
joint force, and can help provide access for that force wherever
needed.
Though the fiscal choices made over the past year were difficult,
we are confident that we are managing risk by balancing capacity and
capabilities across our forces while maintaining the high levels of
readiness for which the Nation relies on its marines. The Corps of
today and tomorrow will maintain its high standards of training,
education, leadership and discipline, while contributing vital
capabilities to the joint force across the spectrum of military
operations. The emerging strategy revalidates our role as America's
expeditionary force in readiness. Our partnership with the Navy enables
a forward-deployed and engaged force that shapes, deters, responds, and
projects power well into the future.
During our force structure assessment, we cross-checked
recommendations against approved Department of Defense (DOD) Operations
and Contingency Plans, and incorporated lessons learned from 10 years
of combat. The resulting force structure decisions to support the new
strategy are:
--reduced the end strength of the active component of the Marine
Corps from 202,100 beginning this fiscal year to 182,100 by the
end of fiscal year 2016;
--designed a force with capabilities optimized for forward-presence,
engagement, and rapid crisis response;
--funded readiness levels required for immediate deployment and
crisis response;
--properly re-shaped organizations, capabilities, and capacities to
increase aggregate utility and flexibility across the range of
military operations; also enhancing support provided to U.S.
Special Operations and Cyber Commands;
--properly balanced critical capabilities and enablers across our
air-ground-logistics task forces, ensuring that identified low-
density/high-demand assets became right-density/high-demand
assets;
--incorporated the lessons learned from 10 years of war--in
particular, the requirements to field a force that is manned,
trained, and equipped to conduct distributed operations;
--created an operational reserve component capability without any
reductions in reserve force structure; and
--designed the force for more closely integrated operations with our
Navy, special operations, and inter-agency partners.
Throughout this period of adjustment, we will ``keep faith with our
marines, sailors, and their families''. Our approach to caring for them
is based on our recognition and appreciation for their unwavering
loyalty and unfailing service through a decade of combat operations.
This strong commitment will not change.
Maintaining a High State of Readiness
The Navy and Marine Corps team is the Nation's resource for
mitigating risk. Given likely future operations set forth in the
Defense Strategic Guidance ranging from defeating rogue actors to
responding to natural disasters, the Nation can afford and should
invest in the small premium it pays for high-readiness levels within
its naval amphibious forces. Because our Nation cannot afford to hold
the entire joint force at such high rates of readiness, it has
historically ensured that marines remain ready; and has used us often
to plug gaps, buy time for decisionmakers, ensure access or respond
when and where needed.
In order for the Marine Corps to achieve institutional readiness
for crisis and contingency response, we must maintain balance in the
following five pillars:
High-Quality People (Recruiting and Retaining High-Quality People
Plays a Key Role in Maintaining our High State of Readiness).--
Recruiting quality youth ultimately translates into higher
performance, reduced attrition, increased retention, and
improved readiness for the operating forces. By retaining the
highest-quality people, the Marine Corps will continue to
achieve success in today's dynamic environment and meet the
challenges posed to our Nation. We will not lower our
standards.
Unit Readiness (Maintaining Readiness of the Operating Forces,
Including Appropriate Operations and Maintenance Funding to
Train to Core Missions and Maintain Equipment).--The Marine
Corps deploys units at high levels of readiness for assigned
missions. We source our best-trained, most-ready forces to meet
Geographic Combatant Commander requirements. One hundred
percent of deployed units report the highest levels of
readiness for their assigned mission. We will be ready to
deploy on a moment's notice.
Capacity Versus Requirements (Force-Sizing To Meet Geographic
Combatant Commander Requirements With the Right Mix of Capacity
and Capability).--The Marine Corps must maintain a force that
meets our ongoing operational requirements to include our
commitment to OEF, our rotational presence abroad, our many
security cooperation and engagement activities, along with
anticipated missions as we reorient to the Pacific.
Infrastructure Sustainment (Investing in Real Property,
Maintenance, and Infrastructure).--We must adequately resource
the sustainment of our bases and stations to maintain our
physical infrastructure and the means to train and deploy our
forces. As resources become more constrained, we will become
even better stewards of our installations to maintain our
facilities for the next generation of marines.
Equipment Modernization (Ensuring Ground and Aviation Equipment
Matches the Needs of the Emerging Security Environment).--As we
explore options to adjust to changing fiscal realities, there
is a clear imperative for our Corps to reset portions of our
legacy equipment used in OEF and Operation Iraqi Freedom while
we modernize what we must to guarantee our dominance and
relevance against future threats.
FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
The Frugal Force
The Marine Corps is fully aware of the fiscal challenges facing our
Nation and has critically examined and streamlined our force needs for
the future. We continually strive to be good stewards of the public
trust by maintaining the very best financial management practices. The
Marine Corps has undergone an independent audit in fiscal year 2010,
and our fiscal year 2011 audit is still ongoing. We plan to pursue an
independent audit again for fiscal year 2012 and fully expect an audit
opinion for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012. To date, we are the
only service to undertake such independent scrutiny. By the end of
2012, we will complete initial Service-wide implementation of our
Enterprise Resource Planning System--Global Combat Support System--
Marine Corps (GCSS-MC). GCSS-MC will significantly improve our
inventory accountability and contribute to clean audit requirements. We
are proud of our reputation for frugality and remain one of the best
values for the defense dollar.
We have four major accounts governing our operations:
--investment;
--operations and maintenance;
--military construction (MILCON) and family housing; and
--manpower.
These are our priorities:
Investment
--Enhancing programs vital to our ground combat elements.
--Light armored vehicles (LAV), high-mobility artillery rocket
system (HIMARS), small tactical unmanned aerial system
(STUAS).
--Maintaining the same investment levels in other enabling programs.
--Ground/Aviation Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR), Next Generation
Enterprise Network (NGEN), Command and Control Situational
Awareness (C2/SA).
--Fully funding critical research and development efforts.
--Joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV), amphibious combat vehicle
(ACV).
--Sustaining other ground and tactical vehicles until their
replacements can be procured.
--High-mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) and
amphibious assault vehicle (AAV).
--Procuring full programs of record critical to aviation
modernization.
--F-35B, H-1 Upgrades, MV-22B, KC-130J, CH-53K.
Operations and Maintenance
--Fully funding our education, training, and readiness accounts.
--Resourcing civilian work force at fiscal year 2010 end-of-year
levels.
--Enhancing support of Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) and
Marine Forces Cyber Command (MARFORCYBER).
--Providing continued support to family readiness and Wounded Warrior
programs.
--Supporting transition from the Navy/Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) to
NGEN.
--Maintaining energy mandates.
Military Construction and Family Housing
--Maintaining facility sustainment at 90 percent of required funding.
--Increasing facilities demolition funds.
--Preserving essential MILCON funding.
Aviation.--Joint Strike Fighter, MV-22B Osprey.
Ground.--Marine Corps Security Forces, Marine Corps University.
--Preserving environmental restoration funding, family housing
operations and construction.
Manpower
--Reducing end strength from 202,100 marines to 182,100 marines by
the end of fiscal year 2016 in a responsible and measured way
to keep faith with all who have served.
--Realigning force structure across the entire Marine Corps.
--Maintaining our reserve component at 39,600 marines.
During these times of constrained resources, we remain committed to
refining operations, identifying efficiencies, and reinvesting savings
to conserve scarce public funds. We have met or exceeded all DOD
efficiency measures to date. This fiscal year, we are seeking $30.8
billion ($23.9 billion baseline + $6.9 billion in overseas contingency
operations) to fund our operations, provide quality resources for our
marines, sailors, and their families, conduct reset of equipment worn
from more than 10 years at war and posture our forces for the future.
Marines account for only 8.2 percent \4\ of the total DOD budget. With
that, our Nation gains the ability to respond to unexpected crises,
from humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts to
noncombatant evacuation operations, to counterpiracy operations, to
full-scale combat. When the Nation pays the ``sticker price'' for its
marines, it buys the ability to remain forward deployed and forward
engaged, to reinforce alliances and build partner capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This percentage is based on the enacted fiscal year 2012 DOD
budget authorization and is slightly larger than the 7.8-percent sum
cited in the past. This percentage includes $3 billion in fiscal year
2012 funding for amphibious warship new construction as well as Navy
funding for chaplains, medical personnel, amphibious warships
(operations and maintenance), and Marine Corps aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ROLE OF MARINES IN THE FUTURE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT
The Future Security Environment
The rapidly evolving events of the past year alone indicate a new
constant. Competition for resources; natural disasters; social unrest;
hostile cyber activity, violent extremism (criminal, terrorist, and
religious); regional conflict; proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction; and advanced weaponry in the hands of the irresponsible
are becoming all too common. Marine Corps intelligence estimates
rightfully point out that ``more than half of the world's population
lives in fragile states, vulnerable to ruinous economic, ideological,
and environmental stresses. In these unstable regions, ever-present
local instability and crises will erupt, prompting U.S. responses in
the form of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations,
actions to curtail piracy, stability operations, and the rescue and
evacuation of U.S. citizens and diplomats''.\5\ These and other sources
of stress are challenging industrialized nations just as they do
emerging and failed ones. Further increased fragility of the global
systems impacts both international markets and our Nation's economic
stability. These challenges are harbingers of potential crisis around
the world and more specifically for naval forces in the littoral
regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Five Year Forecast: 2012-2017 Assessment of International
Challenges and Opportunities That May Affect Marine Expeditionary
Forces, January 2012, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
History has shown that crises usually come with little or no
warning; stemming from the same conditions of uncertainty, complexity,
and chaos we observe across the world today. Regardless of the
financial pressures placed on governments and markets today, crises
requiring military intervention undoubtedly will continue tomorrow. In
this environment, physical presence and readiness matter significantly.
Since the 1990s, America has been reducing its foreign basing and
presence, bringing forces back home. This trend is not likely to change
in the face of the strategic and budget realities we currently face.
There remains an enduring requirement to balance presence with cost. In
the past, the Nation has chosen to depend on the Navy and Marine Corps
to provide a lean and economical force of an expeditionary nature,
operating forward and in close proximity to potential trouble spots.
Investing in naval forces that can respond to a wide-range of crisis
situations, creates options and decision space for our Nation's
leaders, and protects our citizens and interests is a prudent measure
in today's world.
The Navy and Marine Corps Team
Partnered with the United States Navy in a state of persistent
forward presence aboard amphibious warships, your United States Navy
and Marine Corps team remains the most economical, agile, and ready
force immediately available to deter aggression and respond to crises.
Such a flexible and multicapable force that maintains high-readiness
levels can mitigate risk, satisfy the standing strategic need for
crisis response, and when necessary, spearhead entry and access for the
joint force. More than 60 years ago and arising out of the lessons
learned from the Korean War, the 82nd Congress envisioned the need for
a force that ``is highly mobile, always at a high state of combat
readiness . . . in a position to hold a full-scale aggression at bay
while the American Nation mobilizes its vast defense machinery''.\6\
This statement continues to describe your Navy and Marine Corps team
today. It is these qualities that allow your Marine Corps to protect
our Nation's interests, reassure our allies, and demonstrate America's
resolve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Committee report accompanying S. 677 and H.R. 666 of June 30,
1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reorienting to the Pacific
As our security strategy looks increasingly toward the Pacific,
forward-deployed naval forces will become increasingly vital. The
``geographic realities'' of the Pacific theater demand naval
responsiveness. The genesis of the amphibious and power projection
capabilities of the Navy and Marine Corps traces back more than 70
years to operations in the Pacific--where today key terrain and
strategic chokepoints are separated by large expanses of ocean. The
Pacific theater is where 30 percent of the world's population and the
same percentage of our primary trading partners reside; where five
major defense treaties are focused; \7\ where 50 percent of the world's
megacities are situated; and where natural disasters over the past
decade have required the greatest attention from the international
community.\8\ The geography of the Pacific has not changed, though our
tactics and operations continually evolve with the changing character
and lethality of modern warfare. Approximately 24,000 marines already
in the Pacific conduct an ambitious, annual training cycle of more than
80 exercises, engagements and initiatives, in addition to the crises we
respond to such as Operation Tomodachi in Japan last year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Philippines-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty (1951); Australia, New
Zealand, U.S. (ANZUS) Treaty; U.S. Alliance with South Korea (1954);
Thailand (Manila Pact of 1954); U.S. Japan Security Treaty (1960).
\8\ According to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission
for Asia and the Pacific, during the period 2001 to 2010 in the Asia-
Pacific region more than 200 million people per year were affected by
natural disasters. This total amounts to 95 percent of the total people
affected by natural disasters annually. Approximately 70,000 people per
year were killed due to natural disasters (65 percent of the world's
total that died of such causes). An average of $35 billion of economic
damage occurred per year to the region due to natural disasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forward presence involves a combination of land- and sea-based
naval forces. Our enduring bases and presence have served U.S. national
security interests well for decades. Our rotational presence in
locations such as Japan, Korea, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand,
and Singapore reassures our allies and partners. Sea-basing, the act of
using amphibious warships with support from maritime prepositioned
ships with various types of connectors, is uniquely suited to provide
the geographic combatant commander with the flexibility to deploy
forces anywhere in the Pacific region without having to rely on
multiple bases ashore or imposing our presence on a sovereign nation.
Sea-basing enables forward deployed presence at an affordable cost.
Forward-deployed naval forces serve as a deterrent and provide a
flexible, agile response capability for crises or contingencies.
Maritime prepositioning offers the ability to rapidly support and
sustain Marine forces in the Pacific during training, exercises, or
emerging crises, and delivers the full-range of logistical support
those forces require.
A Middleweight Force From the Sea
As a ``middleweight force'', Marines do not seek to supplant any
service or ``own'' any domain. Rather, Marine forces operate in a
``lane'' that passes through all domains--land, sea, air, space, and
cyber--operating capably and freely throughout the spectrum of threats,
whether they be conventional, hybrid, irregular, or the uncertain areas
where they overlap. Whereas other forces are optimized for a particular
mission and domain, the Marine Corps is optimized for rapid deployment,
versatile employment, and self-sustainment via Marine Air-Ground Task
Forces (MAGTF), which are balanced, combined-arms formations under a
single commander. All MAGTFs consist of four core elements:
--a command element;
--ground combat element;
--aviation combat element; and
--logistics combat element.
MAGTFs are scalable in size and capability.
Bridging a seam in our Nation's defense between heavy conventional
and special operations forces (SOF), the United States Marine Corps is
light enough to arrive rapidly at the scene of a crisis, but heavy
enough to carry the day and sustain itself upon arrival. The Marine
Corps is not designed to be a second-land army. That said, throughout
the history of our Nation, its Marines have been called to support
sustained operations from time to time. We are proud of our ability to
contribute to land campaigns when required by leveraging and rapidly
aggregating our capabilities and capacities. Primarily though, the
Corps is a critical portion of our integrated naval forces and designed
to project power ashore from the sea. This capability does not
currently reside in any other service; a capability that has been
called upon time and again to deter aggression and to respond quickly
to threatening situations with appropriate military action.
Marine Corps and SOF roles are complementary, not redundant.
Special forces contribute to the counterinsurgency and counterterrorism
demands of the geographic combatant commanders in numerous and
specialized ways, but they are not a substitute for conventional
forces, and they do not have a broader range of capabilities and
sustainability. SOF lack the organic logistic capability and capacity
to execute a noncombatant operation, serve as a ``fire brigade'' in a
crisis or conduct combined amphibious and airborne assaults against a
competent enemy. Middleweight naval forces, trained in combined arms
warfare and knowledgeable in the art of maneuver warfare from the sea,
are ideally trained and prepared for these types of operations.
The Littorals
The United States remains a maritime Nation that relies heavily on
the oceans and waterways of the world for the free exchange of ideas
and trade. The maritime commons are where 95 percent of the world's
commerce flows, where more than 42,000 commercial ships are under way
daily, where most of the world's digital information flows via undersea
cables, and where one-half the world's oil travels through seven
strategic chokepoints. To secure our way of life and ensure
uninterrupted freedom of navigation, we must retain the ability to
operate simultaneously and seamlessly while at sea, ashore, from the
sea, in the air, and perhaps most importantly, where these domains
converge--the littorals. These littoral areas exist not only in the
Pacific but throughout the world. Operating in the littoral environment
demands the close integration of air, sea, and land power. By using the
sea as maneuver space, flexible naval forces can quickly respond to
crises in the bordering environment of the littorals.
In the context of the new strategy, the Navy and Marine Corps team
is increasingly relevant in meeting the exigent military needs of our
Nation. Together, we provide the capability for massing potent forces
close to a foreign shore, while maintaining a diplomatically sensitive
profile. Additionally, when necessary, we are able to project this
power ashore across the range of military operations at a time of our
Nation's choosing. Amphibious capabilities provide the means to conduct
littoral maneuver--the ability to maneuver combat-ready forces from the
sea to the shore and inland in order to achieve a positional advantage
over the enemy. Working seamlessly as a single naval force, your Navy
and Marine Corps team provides the essential elements of access and
forcible entry capabilities that are necessary components of a joint
campaign.
Engagement
In order to keep large crises from breaking out or spilling over to
destabilize an entire region, 21st century security challenges also
require expansion of global engagement with partner and allied
nations--facilitated through persistent forward naval presence--to
promote collective approaches to common security concerns. Our
engagement contributions in support of the geographic combatant
commanders minimize conditions for conflict and enable host nation
forces to effectively address instability on their own as it occurs.
They promote regional stability and the growth of democracy while also
deterring regional aggression. History has shown that it is often far
cheaper to prevent a conflict than to respond to one. This thrust will
necessitate amphibious forces that are not only fighters, but who can
also serve as trainers, mentors, and advisers to host nation military
forces.
Integration with the Joint Force
In our new defense strategy, the Marine Corps will fill a unique
lane in the capability range of America's Armed Forces. Whether first-
on-the scene, part of, or leading a joint force, marines instinctively
understand the logic and synergy behind joint operations. Our ability
to deploy rapidly and globally allows us to set the stage and enable
the transition to follow-on joint forces in a timely manner. Our MAGTF
structure--with organic logistics, aviation, intelligence, fires, and
other assets--enables us to seamlessly team with others and provides
options for the joint force commander to:
--provide a visible deterrent to would-be threats without requiring a
vulnerable presence ashore at fixed bases or airfields;
--swiftly respond to small-scale crises with a range of options
beyond precision strike, potentially containing crises before
they erupt into major contingencies;
--partner with the Navy and United States Special Operations Command
(SOCOM) to shape the operational environment;
--use the sea as maneuver space, avoiding enemy strengths, and
striking his weaknesses;
--directly seize or obtain operational objectives from the sea,
without the requirement for large force build-ups or sustained
presence ashore;
--extend the operational reach of the Joint Force hundreds of miles
inland to achieve effects from the sea through organic MAGTF
assets; and
--overcome anti-access and area denial threats in a single-naval
battle approach through the use of landing forces aboard
amphibious warships integrated with other capabilities to
include mine countermeasures and naval surface fires.
Day-to-Day Crisis Response
Engagement and crisis response are the most frequent reasons to
employ our amphibious forces. The same capabilities and flexibility
that allow an amphibious task force to deliver and support a landing
force on a hostile shore enable it to support forward engagement and
crisis response. The geographic combatant commanders have increased
their demand for forward-postured amphibious forces capable of
conducting security cooperation, regional deterrence, and crisis
response.
Marines have conducted amphibious operations and responded to
crises throughout the world more than 100 times in the past two
decades. The vast majority of our expeditionary service has involved
crisis response and limited contingency operations, usually conducted
in periods when the Nation has otherwise been at peace. Some of these
were relatively short-term rescue or raid expeditions, while others
evolved into contingencies that were limited in force size but not
limited in duration, complexity and level of integration with the other
elements of national power. We will contribute to the missions of our
Nation's security strategy in the same way.\9\ On a day-to-day basis,
marines will be forward-deployed and engaged, working closely with our
joint and allied partners. When crises or contingencies arise, these
same marines will respond--locally, regionally, or globally if
necessary--to accomplish whatever mission the Nation requires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Marine Corps is capable of performing 9 of the 10 stated
missions in the Defense Strategic Guidance to include:
-- Counterterrorism and irregular warfare;
-- Deter and defeat aggression;
-- Project power despite anti-access/area denial challenges;
-- Counter weapons of mass destruction;
-- Operate effectively in cyberspace and space;
-- Defend the Homeland and provide support to civil authorities;
-- Provide a stabilizing presence;
-- Conduct stability and counterinsurgency operations; and
-- Conduct humanitarian, disaster relief; and other operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
America's Expeditionary Force in Readiness
The new strategic guidance underscores the Marine Corps role as
America's expeditionary force in readiness. Reliant on a strategically
relevant and appropriately resourced Navy fleet of amphibious warships
and maritime prepositioning force (MPF) vessels, we are forward
deployed and forward engaged: shaping strategic environments; training
partner nation and allied forces; deterring adversaries; and responding
to all manner of crises contingencies.\10\ Alert and ready, we respond
to today's crisis with today's force . . . today. Marines are ready to
respond whenever the Nation calls and wherever and however the
President may direct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ As of January 2012, approximately 30,000 marines were forward
deployed in operations supporting our Nation's defense. This number
includes approximately 19,500 marines in Afghanistan including those
serving in external billets (transition teams, joint/interagency
support, etc.), approximately 5,000 marines at sea on Marine
Expeditionary Units (MEU), and approximately 6,000 marines engaged in
various other missions, operations, and exercises. The 30,000 marine
statistic does not include more than 18,000 marines permanently
assigned to garrison locations outside the continental United States
such as in Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WE HAVE WORKED DILIGENTLY TO PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE
Force Structure Review
In an effort to ensure the Marine Corps is organized for the
challenges of the emerging security environment, we conducted a
capabilities-based force structure review beginning in the fall of 2010
to identify ways we could rebalance and posture for the future. The
force structure review incorporated the lessons learned from 10 years
of combat and addressed 21st century challenges confronting our Nation
and its Marine Corps. The review sought to provide the ``best value''
in terms of capability, cost, and readiness relative to the operational
requirements of our forward-engaged geographic combatant commanders.
The results of that effort have been shared with the Congress over the
past year. While affirming this strategy-driven effort, we have aligned
our force based on the realities of constrained spending levels and
strategic guidance.
End Strength
During our comprehensive force structure review, we tailored a
force structure to ensure a sufficient type and quantity of force
available to meet the forward presence, engagement, and crisis response
requirements of the geographic combatant commanders. The resulting
force structure is intended to meet title 10 responsibilities, broaden
capabilities, enhance speed and response options, and foster the
partnerships necessary to execute the range of military operations
while providing the ``best value'' to the Nation. This force structure
also accounted for the addition of enabling assets (e.g. combat
engineers, information operations specialists, civil affairs personnel,
specialized intelligence marines, cyber operators, special operators,
etc.) necessary to meet the demands of the battlefields of today and
tomorrow.
As directed, we will draw-down our force in a measured way
beginning in fiscal year 2013. Our fiscal year 2013 programmed end
strength is 197,300 marines. In accordance with Defense Strategic
Guidance, we are resisting the ``temptation to sacrifice readiness in
order to retain force structure''.\11\ Personnel costs account for
about 60 cents of every marine $1; through our force structure efforts
we balanced the requisite capabilities across a smaller force, in
effect trading capacity for modernization and readiness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st
Century Defense'', January 2012, p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resulting 182,100 marine active-duty force, supported by our
operational reserve component, retains the capacity and capability to
support steady state and crisis response operations through rotational
deployments, and to rapidly surge in support of major contingency
operations. Although reshaping the Marine Corps from 202,100 marines to
a force of approximately 182,100 marines entails some risk to our
ability to simultaneously respond to multiple large-scale
contingencies, it is manageable. We intend to leverage the diverse
depth and range of assets within our reserve component both to mitigate
risk and maximize opportunities where available.
As we reduce end strength, we must manage the rate carefully so we
reduce the force responsibly. We will draw-down our end strength by
approximately 5,000 marines per year. The continued resourcing of this
gradual ramp-down is vital to keeping faith with those who have already
served in combat and for those with families who have experienced
resulting extended separations. The pace of active component draw-down
will account for completion of our mission in Afghanistan, ensuring
proper resiliency in the force relative to dwell times. As our Nation
continues to draw-down its Armed Forces, we must guard against the
tendency to focus on pre-9/11 end strength levels that neither account
for the lessons learned of 10 years at war nor address the irregular
warfare needs of the modern battlefield. Our 182,100 Marine Corps
represents fewer infantry battalions, artillery battalions, fixed-wing
aviation squadrons, and general support combat logistics battalions
than we had prior to 9/11. However, it adds cyber operations
capability, Marine special operators, wartime enablers, and higher unit
manning levels--all lessons gleaned from 10 years of combat operations;
it is a very capable force.
My promise to the Congress is that at the end of the day, I will
build and maintain the best Marine Corps our Nation can afford with the
resources it is willing to invest. We are also committed to keeping
faith with marines, sailors, and their families who have sacrificed so
much over the past decade at war. Personnel reductions that become
precipitous are among the worst measures that can be employed to save
money. Our All-Volunteer Force is built upon a reasonable opportunity
for retention and advancement; unplanned and unexpected wholesale cuts
undermine the faith and confidence in service leadership, and create
long-term experience deficits with negative operational impacts. Such
an approach would no doubt do significant long-term damage to our
ability to recruit and maintain a quality force.
Civilian Marines
Our civilian marines support the mission and daily functions of the
Marine Corps and are an integral part of our total force. In
recognition of the need to study and clearly define our civilian work
force requirements to ensure we had the right workforce in the right
location, at a cost that aligned with our budget, I directed a full
review of the total force in late 2010. This measure necessitated a
hiring freeze but resulted in prioritized requirements within
affordable levels and the alignment of resources with capabilities. It
also ensured the civilian labor force was shaped to support the mission
of the Corps today and that projected for the future.
During the fiscal year 2012 budget cycle, there was no growth in
our fiscal year 2011 civilian work force levels due to necessary
efficiency measures. Consequently, our civilian work force went from a
planned level of 21,000 personnel in direct funded full-time equivalent
(FTE) personnel to 17,501 personnel. This number of FTE personnel will
remain constant in each year of the current future year's defense plan
(FYDP)--there is no growth planned. The end result is a 17-percent
reduction in planned growth between fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year
2012 budget requests.
Our fiscal year 2013 civilian personnel budget reflects efforts to
restrain growth in direct funded personnel. By establishing budgetary
targets consistent with current fiscal realities, we will be able to
hold our civilian labor force at fiscal year 2010 end-of-year levels,
except for limited growth in critical areas such as the acquisition
workforce, the intelligence community, the information technology
community (i.e. conversion from NMCI to NGEN), in-sourcing of security
personnel (i.e. Marine Corps civilian law enforcement personnel), and
personnel in our cyber community. Our civilian marine work force
remains the leanest among DOD with only 1 civilian for every 10
marines.
OUR PRIORITIES
Commandant's Four Priorities
To best meet the demands of the future and the many types of
missions marines will be expected to perform now and beyond the post-
OEF security environment, I established four enduring priorities in
2010. To that end, we will:
--provide the best trained and equipped marine units to Afghanistan.
This will not change and remains our top priority;
--rebalance our Corps, posture it for the future and aggressively
experiment with and implement new capabilities and
organizations;
--better educate and train our marines to succeed in distributed
operations and increasingly complex environments; and
--keep faith with our marines, our sailors, and our families.
We are making significant progress within each of these four
critical areas; however, there are pressing issues facing our Corps
today that require the special attention and assistance of the
Congress. These include specific programs and initiatives within the
command, ground, logistics, and aviation portfolios of the MAGTF.
Reset
The Marine Corps is conducting a comprehensive review of its
equipment inventory to validate reset strategies, future acquisition
plans, and depot maintenance programming and modernization initiatives.
As already stated, after 10 years of constant combat operations, the
Marine Corps must reset the force coming out of Afghanistan. The reset
of equipment retrograded to home station from Iraq (approximately
64,000 principal items) is complete. However, the equipment density
list currently supporting combat operations in Afghanistan totals
approximately 95,000 principal items, of which approximately 42 percent
was retransferred directly from Iraq to support the surge of 2009. The
bulk of this transferred equipment included high-demand items such as
communications equipment and vehicles to include the majority of our
mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles and 100 percent of our medium
tactical vehicle fleet.
Sustaining current combat operations has reduced the aggregate
readiness of the nondeployed force. Nondeployed unit readiness is
degraded and has been the ``bill payer'' for deployed unit readiness.
We sacrificed readiness levels of our home station units to ensure
marines in combat had the very best equipment. Through the support of
the Congress over the past few years, we have received a good portion
of the required funding for reset and have made significant progress at
our depots in restoring and procuring required materiel. But there is
more to do at our home stations. Thirty-three percent of nondeployed
units report the highest-readiness levels for their designed mission,
which leaves 67 percent of nondeployed units in a degraded state of
readiness. The largest contributing factor to degraded readiness within
nondeployed units is equipment supply. The nondeployed force provides
the Nation depth in responsiveness and options when confronted with the
unexpected. Our marines at home must be ``geared up'' and ready to be
called at a moment's notice. Low levels of readiness within the
nondeployed force increases risk in the timely and successful execution
of a military response to crises or contingencies. Therefore, it is
critical that the Marine Corps continues to receive congressional
assistance on required funding to reset our equipment from the
conflicts of the past decade.
In January 2012, I signed the ``Marine Corps OEF Ground Equipment
Reset Strategy'', rooted in the lessons learned from our successful
redeployment and retrograde from Iraq. This strategy is helping to
identify what equipment we will reset and what we will divest. It
prioritizes investment and modernization decisions in accordance with
the capabilities of our middleweight force construct, defining unit-
level mission essential tasks and equipment requirements to support the
range of military operations, and equips to core capabilities for
immediate crisis response deployment and building strategic depth. We
have issued disposition instructions on 8,400 principal items
associated with the initial draw-down of forces that will occur this
fall. In Afghanistan, 35 percent of that equipment has entered the
redeployment and retrograde pipeline. Initial shipments of equipment
have arrived at home stations and depots, and are being entered into
the maintenance cycle. We currently expect divestment of approximately
21 percent of the total Afghanistan equipment density list as obsolete,
combat loss, or otherwise beyond economical repair. These are combat
capability items that must be replaced.
The reset of our equipment after more than a decade of combat
requires an unprecedented level of effort. Our Marine Corps depots will
be asked to do more once again; they stand ready to do so. As our
Nation looks to efficiencies in its Armed Forces, we must maintain a
keen awareness of the role that depots play in keeping our country
strong. The continued availability of our depot capacity both at
Barstow, California and Albany, Georgia is essential to our ability to
self-generate readiness and to respond when we must surge in response
to wartime demand. Acknowledging fiscal realities, I directed, with the
Secretary of the Navy's approval, the consolidation of the two Marine
Corps depots under a single command with two operating plant locations.
Consolidating our depots under a single commander is the right balance
between fiscal efficiency and meeting the unique requirements of the
Marine Corps. This consolidation will reduce costs, standardize
processes between industrial plants, and increase efficiency.
Modernization
In conjunction with our reset efforts, we are undertaking several
initiatives to conduct only essential modernization of the Marine Corps
Total Force. This will place us on a sustainable course to achieve
institutional balance. We are doing so by judiciously developing and
procuring the right equipment needed for success in the conflicts of
tomorrow, especially in those areas that underpin our core
competencies. As such, I ask for continued congressional support to
modernize equipment and maintain a high state of readiness that will
place us on solid footing in a post-Afghanistan security environment.
While budgetary pressures will likely constrain modernization
initiatives, we will mitigate pressure by continuing to prioritize and
sequence both our modernization and sustainment programs to ensure that
our equipment is always ready and that we are proceeding in a fiscally
responsible manner. Modernization programs that require significant
additional funding above current levels will be evaluated for continued
operational requirement and capability/capacity modification.
We recognize that our planned, force structure reduction following
our commitment in Afghanistan will accommodate a level of decreased
modernization investment due to a requirement for a smaller quantity of
modernized equipment. However, any qualitative modernization reductions
will impact our ability to respond to future adversaries and threats.
The current baseline budget allows for equipment modernization on a
reasonable timeline across the FYDP. Possible future reductions in the
baseline budget will result in delays, modification or elimination of
key modernization programs. Modernization in the following areas is
critical to maintaining operational capabilities and readiness:
--ground combat tactical vehicles;
--aviation;
--preparing for future battlefields;
--amphibious and prepositioning ships;
--expeditionary energy; and
--intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
Ground Combat Tactical Vehicle Strategy
The programmatic priority for our ground forces is the seamless
maneuver of marines from the sea to conduct operations ashore whether
for training, humanitarian assistance, or combat. Our ground combat
tactical vehicle (GCTV) strategy is focused on achieving the right mix
of assets, while balancing performance, payload, survivability, fuel
efficiency, transportability, and cost. Vehicles comprising our GCTV
strategy include our entire inventory of wheeled and tracked vehicles
and planned future capabilities including the JLTV, amphibious combat
vehicle (ACV) and the marine personnel carrier (MPC). Throughout 2011
and informed by cost, we conducted a comprehensive systems engineering
review of amphibious vehicle operational requirements. The review
evaluated the requirements for water mobility, land mobility,
lethality, and force protection of the future environment. The
identification of essential requirements helped to drive down both the
production and the sustainment costs for the amphibious vehicles of the
future.
We are conducting an analysis of alternatives on six ACV options,
the results of which will help to inform the direction and scope of the
ACV program. The MPC program is maturing as a wheeled armored personnel
carrier and complements the ACV as a possible solution to the general
support lift capacity requirements of Marine forces operating in the
littorals.
We are firmly partnered with the U.S. Army in fielding a JLTV to
replace a portion of our legacy medium lift utility vehicles. Our long-
term participation in this program remains predicated on development of
a cost-effective vehicle, whose payload integrates seamlessly with our
expeditionary operations and likely amphibious and strategic lift
profiles.\12\ The Joint Requirements Oversight Council has approved the
JLTV Capability Development Document, and our combat development
command in Quantico is leading the Army and Marine Corps effort to
establish a program of record at Milestone B in the third quarter of
fiscal year 2012. Our approach to JLTV is as an incremental
acquisition, and our objective for Increment I currently stands at more
than 5,000 vehicles. Factoring all the above considerations, the
current pathway for our GCTV strategy includes the following actions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For two-axle combat vehicles, this equates to combat weights
in the 18,000 to 19,000 lbs range, translating to empty vehicle weights
in the range of 12,000 to 13,000 lbs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--develop a modern ACV;
--develop and procure JLTV;
--sustain HMMWVs through 2030 by utilizing an Inspect and Repair Only
As Necessary Depot Maintenance Program and a HMMWV Modification
Line; \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ HMMWV recapitalization does not meet Marine Corps requirements
for those light vehicles with the most demanding missions. They cannot
deliver reliability, payload, service life, mobility, the ability to
fit on MPF shipping, and growth potential. The JLTV is the most cost-
effective program to meet capability gaps for those light combat
vehicles with the most demanding missions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--initiate a legacy amphibious assault vehicle upgrade as a bridge to
ACV;
--continue research and development in MPC through fiscal year 2014
to identify the most effective portfolio mix of vehicles; and
--limit procurement of vehicles to reduced approved acquisition
objective estimates as identified.
Marine Corps Aviation
Marine Corps Aviation is proud to celebrate its centennial of
service to our Nation this year. Our priority for aviation is support
of marines in Afghanistan and wherever marines are deployed. On
average, more than 40 percent of our aviation force is deployed at any
time with an additional 25 percent preparing to deploy. All told, this
equates to two-thirds of Marine Aviation forces currently deployed or
preparing to deploy. We are continuing a modernization effort that
began more than a decade ago. Today, the Marine Corps is challenged to
replace aging platforms that have reached the end of their service
lives or suffered accelerated wear in harsh operating environments,
thus reducing service life and resulting in the loss of critical war-
fighting capabilities. Our aviation plan is a phased multiyear approach
to modernization that encompasses aircraft transitions, readiness,
aircraft inventory shortfalls, manpower challenges, safety, and fiscal
requirements.
In an era of budgetary constraint and amidst calls for reductions
in the collective aviation assets within DOD, it is important to
understand that Marine air is not redundant with other services'
capabilities. The U.S. Air Force is not designed to operate from the
sea, nor are most of its aircraft suited for operations in the types of
austere environments often associated with expeditionary missions. The
Navy currently does not possess sufficient capability to operate their
aircraft ashore once deployed forward on carriers--and yet history has
shown that our Nation often needs an expeditionary aviation capability
in support of both naval and land campaigns. The following programs
form the backbone of our aviation modernization effort:
F-35B.--As we modernize Marine fixed-wing aviation assets for the
future, the continued development and fielding of the short
take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B Joint Strike
Fighter remains the centerpiece of this effort. The capability
inherent in a STOVL jet allows the Marine Corps to operate in
harsh conditions and from remote locations where few airfields
are available for conventional aircraft. It is also
specifically designed to operate from amphibious ships--a
capability that no other tactical aircraft possesses. The
ability to employ a fifth-generation aircraft from amphibious
ships doubles the number of ``carriers''--11 CVN and 11 LHD/
LHAs--from which the United States can employ fixed wing
aviation. Once fully fielded, the F-35B will replace three
legacy aircraft--F/A-18, EA-6B, and AV-8B--saving DOD
approximately $1 billion in legacy operations and maintenance
costs.
The F-35B program has been a success story over the past year.
Due to the performance of F-35B prototypes in 2011, the program
was recently removed 12 months early from a fixed period of
scrutiny. The F-35B completed all planned test points, made a
total of 260 vertical landings (versus 10 total in 2010) and
successfully completed initial ship trials on USS Wasp.
Delivery is still on track; the first three F-35Bs arrived at
Eglin Air Force Base in January of this year. Continued funding
and support from the Congress for this program is of utmost
importance for the Marine Corps as we continue with a plan to
``sundown'' three different legacy platforms.
MV-22B.--The MV-22B Osprey has performed exceedingly well for the
Corps and the joint force. To date, this revolutionary
tiltrotor aircraft has changed the way Marines operate on the
battlefield, giving American and Coalition forces the maneuver
advantage and operational reach unmatched by any other tactical
aircraft. Since achieving initial operating capability (IOC) in
2008, the MV-22B has flown more than 18,000 hours in combat and
carried more than 129,000 personnel and 5.7 million pounds of
cargo. The MV-22B has made multiple combat deployments to Iraq,
four deployments with MEUs at sea, and it is currently on its
fifth deployment to Afghanistan. Our squadron fielding plan is
well under way as we continue to replace our 44-year-old,
Vietnam-era CH-46 helicopters. We must procure all required
quantities of the MV-22B in accordance with the program of
record. Continued calls for cancellation of this program are
ill-informed and rooted in anachronisms when measured against
the proven record of performance and safety this force
multiplier brings to today's battlefields in support of marines
and the joint force.
CH-53K.--We are transitioning our rotary-wing assets for the
future. The CH-53K is a new build heavy-lift helicopter that
evolves the legacy CH-53E design to improve operational
capability, reliability, maintainability, survivability, and
cost. The CH-53K will be capable of transporting 27,000 pounds
of external cargo under high altitude/hot conditions out to 110
nautical miles, nearly three times the lift capacity of the
legacy CH-53E. It is the only marinized rotorcraft \14\ able to
lift 100 percent of Marine Corps air-transportable equipment
from amphibious shipping (MPF included). Our force structure
review validated the need for a CH-53K program of record of
nine CH-53K squadrons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The term ``marinized'' indicates that an aircraft meets naval
aviation requirements for use and storage in a maritime environment.
Aviation platforms used by the Navy and Marine Corps require special
outfitting unique for use on and from naval vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UH-1/AH-1.--The H-1 program, comprised of the UH-1Y utility
helicopter and the AH-1Z attack helicopter, is a single
acquisition program that leverages 84-percent commonality of
major components, thereby enhancing deployability and
maintainability while reducing training requirements and
logistical footprints. Both aircraft are in full-rate
production. The H-1 procurement objective is 160 UH-1Ys and 189
AH-1Zs for a total of 349 aircraft. Currently, 131 H-1 aircraft
are on contract, with 51 UH-1Ys and 21 AH-1Zs delivered to
date. The UH-1Y has already deployed with the 13th MEU and has
supported sustained combat operations in OEF since November
2009. The AH-1Z achieved IOC in February 2011 and saw its first
deployment alongside the UH-1Y in November 2011 as part of the
11th MEU. The continued procurement and rapid transition to
these two platforms from legacy UH-1N and AH-1W assets in our
rotary-wing squadrons remains a priority.
KC-130J.--The new KC-130J Hercules has been fielded throughout
our active component, bringing increased capability,
performance and survivability with lower operating and
sustainment costs to the Marine air ground task force. Using
the Harvest HAWK weapon mission kit, the KC-130J is providing
extended endurance close air support to our marines in harm's
way. Currently, we have procured 47 KC-130Js of the stated
program of record requirement totaling 79 aircraft. Continued
procurement of the program of record will allow us to fully
integrate our active and reserve force with this unique,
multimission assault support platform.
Preparing for Tomorrow's Fight
The irregular battlefields of today, and those of tomorrow, dictate
that operations be more distributed, command and control be
decentralized, and forces be more dispersed. Using our force structure
review as a guide, we are continuing to build the right capacity and
capability to enable marines operate rapidly as befits the tempo of our
role as a crisis response force. Several important areas to enable our
operations are:
Cyber.--The Defense Strategic Guidance rightly informs that
``modern armed forces cannot conduct high-tempo, effective
operations without reliable information and communications
networks and assured access to cyberspace and space''.\15\
Marines have been conducting cyber operations for more than a
decade, and we are in a multiyear effort to expand our capacity
via U.S. Marine Corps Forces Cyber Command as we increase our
cyber force by approximately 700 marines through fiscal year
2016. Given the fiscally constrained environment and complexity
of cyberspace, our approach is strategically focused on
ensuring efficiency in operations and quality of service. The
Marine Corps will aggressively operate and defend its networks
in order to enable critical command and control systems for
marines forward deployed around the world. Recent cyber
accreditations and readiness inspections validate our network
operations command and control processes and procedures. As we
transition to a Government-owned/operated network environment,
the Marine Corps will pursue efficiencies through automation,
consolidation, and standardization to ensure availability,
reliability, and security of cyber assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century
Defense, January 2012, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Operation Forces.--As the Marine Corps contribution to
SOCOM, Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) maintains a
shared heritage and correspondingly strong bond with its parent
service as ``soldiers from the sea''. MARSOC will provide a
total of 32 employable Marine special operations teams in
fiscal year 2013 while establishing the staff of the Marine
special operations school, maintaining a targeted dwell ratio
and continuing creation of a robust language capability. Based
on our force structure review of last year and a programmed end
strength of 182,100 marines, I have authorized an increase of
821 marines in MARSOC.
Command and Control.--Technology and network-based forces are an
essential part of modern operations. Our command and control
(C2) modernization efforts for the future build upon lessons
learned during combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Recent operations have shown that moving data to lower levels
(i.e. the digital divide) increases operational effectiveness.
We are mitigating the decision to cancel the ground mobile
radio by building on investments already made in tactical
communications modernization. We will continue efforts to
ensure C2 Situational Awareness convergence and
interoperability with the joint force.
Advisers and Trainers.--In recognition that preventing conflict
may be easier than responding to it and that we can prevent it
through selective engagement and employment of advisers/
trainers, we have invested in a new organization called Marine
Corps Security Cooperation Group that consolidates advisers
skills, training and assessment expertise focused on building
partnership capacity. We are investigating how we can
regionally focus the expertise of this organization.
Amphibious Warships and Maritime Prepositioning Shipping
Our Service-level requirement to deploy globally, respond
regionally, and train locally necessitates a combination of tactical
airlift, high-speed vessels, amphibious warships, maritime
prepositioning shipping, organic tactical aviation, and strategic
airlift. Significant contributions to U.S. security are made by our
rotational forces embarked aboard amphibious warships. These forces
combine the advantages of an immediate, yet temporary presence,
graduated visibility, and tailored, scalable force packages structured
around the MAGTF. Rotational amphibious ready groups and Marine
expeditionary units form together to provide forward-deployed naval
forces in four geographic combatant command areas of responsibility.
Not only do they provide the capability for crisis response, but they
also present a means for day-to-day engagement with partner nations and
a deterrent to conflict in key trouble spots.
We maintain the requirement for an amphibious warship fleet for
contingencies requiring our role in joint operational access. One
Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) assault echelon requires 17
operationally available amphibious warships. The Nation's forcible
entry requirement includes two simultaneously employed MEBs supported
by one or more MPF-MEB to fight as a Marine expeditionary force from a
sea base.
Amphibious warships and the requisite number of ship-to-shore
connectors provides the base-line needed for steady state operations
and represents the minimum number of ships needed to provide the Nation
with a sea-based power projection capability for full spectrum
amphibious operations. As of January 2012, there were 29 ships in the
Navy's amphibious fleet, with three scheduled for decommissioning and
four new ships under construction in the yards. Within the coming FYDP,
the inventory will decline in fiscal year 2014 before rising to an
average of 30 amphibious warships over the next 30 years. The lack of
amphibious warship lift capacity translates to risk for the Nation,
particularly as it reorients to the Pacific.
The continued procurement of scheduled amphibious warships and
planning for MPF shipping is essential to ensure greater levels of risk
are not incurred in coming years.
San Antonio Class Amphibious Transport Dock.--The San Antonio
class landing platform/docks (LPDs) continue to gain stability
with overall warship performance improving. Through the
generosity of the Congress, the final two warships in this
program are fully funded, and we expect delivery of all 11
planned warships by fiscal year 2017.
America Class Amphibious Assault Ship Replacement.--A growing
maritime threat coupled with aircraft/ground combat equipment
modernization dictates the need for continued optimization of
the America-class amphibious assault ship (LHA-6) hull form,
which is now 60-percent complete. As stated last year, delivery
of this amphibious assault warship is scheduled for fiscal year
2014. The earliest reasonable deployment after allowing time
for sea trials, crew training and other factors would be in
fiscal year 2017. Construction of LHA-7 is scheduled to
commence in early fiscal year 2013 but is not yet under
contract. The Marine Corps is grateful for and firmly supports
the Navy's plan to reintroduce a well deck in our large deck
amphibious assault ships, beginning with LHA-8 in fiscal year
2017 and fiscal year 2018 timeframe.
2 x Maritime Prepositioned Squadrons.--Providing a significant
contribution to global coverage, forward presence and crisis
response, the MPF program exists to enable the rapid deployment
and engagement of a MAGTF anywhere in the world in support of
our National Military Strategy. This strategic capability
combines the capacity and endurance of sealift with the speed
of airlift. The current MPF program is comprised of 15 ships
divided into three Maritime Prepositioned Squadrons (MPSRONs)
located in the Mediterranean Sea, Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia)
and Pacific Ocean (Guam and Saipan). In fiscal year 2013, the
Department of the Navy (DON) plans to eliminate one of these
squadrons as an efficiency measure. We are currently reviewing
options to develop a balanced MPF posture and MPSRON
composition that supports geographic combatant commander
requirements, achieves approximately $125 million in savings
across the FYDP, attains a higher lift capacity of the MEB
requirement per MPSRON, and retains critical sea-basing
enabling capabilities. The continued support of the Congress
for the vital capabilities inherent in our MPF program is
essential to the overall warfighting readiness of the Corps.
Expeditionary Energy
For marines, the term ``expeditionary'' is a mindset that
determines how we man, train, and equip our force. We know that
resource efficiency aids in combat effectiveness, and that our
investments in reset and modernization will provide a force that
operates lighter, faster, and at reduced risk. Likewise, our force will
be more energy-efficient to support the type of operations expected of
us in the future. To do this, we are changing the way we think about
and use energy.
Over the last 10 years of near continuous combat operations, our
need for fuel and batteries on the battlefield has grown exponentially.
Since 2001, we have increased the number of radios our infantry
battalions use by 250 percent, and the number of computers/information
technology equipment by 300 percent. The number of vehicles has risen
by 200 percent with their associated weight increasing more than 75
percent as a result of force protection requirements. In the end, our
force today is more lethal, but we have become critically dependent on
fuel and batteries, which has increased the risk to our logistics
trains. Moreover, a 2010 study found that one marine is wounded for
every 50 fuel and water convoys.
To reduce our risk and increase our combat effectiveness, in March
2011, I issued the ``Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Strategy and
Implementation Plan'' to change the way we think about and value
energy. This is a ``bases-to-battlefield'' strategy, which means all
marines will be trained to understand the relationship between resource
efficiency and combat effectiveness. We will consider energy
performance in all our requirements and acquisitions decisions. We are
creating the tools to provide commanders the information necessary to
understand their energy consumption in real-time.
Over the FYDP, I have directed $350 million to ``Expeditionary
Energy'' initiatives. Fifty-eight percent of this investment is
directed toward procuring renewable and energy efficient equipment.
Some of this gear has already demonstrated effectiveness on the
battlefield in Helmand Province. Twenty-one percent of this investment
is directed toward research and development of new capabilities, and
the remaining investment is to support operations and maintenance. We
expect this investment to improve the energy efficiency of our MEBs by
9 percent. As such, we will enable ourselves to sustain longer and go
further, incurring less risk. The MEB of 2017 will be able to operate 1
month longer on the same amount of fuel that we plan to use today, and
it will need 208 fewer fuel trucks, thereby saving 7 million gallons of
fuel per year. This translates to a lighter, more agile, and more
capable Marine Corps.
PROVIDING CAPABLE BASES, STATIONS, AND SUPPORT FACILITIES
Fiscal Year 2013 Military Construction
The Marine Corps maintains a commitment to facilities and
infrastructure supporting both operations and quality of life. Our
military construction and family programs are important to sustain our
force structure and maintaining readiness. This fiscal year we are
proposing a $761 million MILCON program to support warfighting, family
housing, and infrastructure improvements. The focus of our efforts this
fiscal year is the construction of Joint Strike Fighter and MV-22B
support facilities, infrastructure improvements, and training and
education facility improvements. Additionally, this budget request
includes replacement of inadequate and obsolete facilities at various
locations.
Through the support of the Congress, between fiscal year 2008-
fiscal year 2012 we programmed 70 bachelor enlisted quarters (BEQ)
projects resulting in 149 barracks buildings primarily located at Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina; Camp Pendleton and Twentynine Palms,
California; and Marine Corps Base, Hawaii. These BEQ projects were
typically completed in 2 years, with most at or below cost. These
facilities, that incorporated energy efficiency measures, have
significantly improved the quality of life of our single marines, who
for many years, lived in substandard, World War II-era barracks. Our
fiscal year 2013 MILCON program includes a $49 million request for
barracks, a motor pool, and other facilities to support the
consolidation of Marine Corps Security Force Regiment assets at Naval
Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia. This project was not a part of our
original BEQ initiative but is necessary as the current facilities used
by the Regiment at Naval Station Norfolk have been condemned.
Infrastructure Sustainment
As resources and MILCON funds become more constrained, the Marine
Corps will continue to rely on the sound stewardship of existing
facilities and infrastructure to support our needs. In fiscal year
2013, the Marine Corps will again program facilities sustainment
funding at 90 percent of the DOD Facilities Sustainment Model,
resulting in a facilities sustainment budget of $653 million.
Installation Energy Initiatives
The fiscal year 2013 budget provides $164 million in operations and
maintenance funding to continue progress in achieving mandated energy
goals by 2015. This funding will target energy efficiency goals
established by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 aimed
at reducing energy intensity by 30 percent from a 2003 baseline. This
progress will be made by replacing older heating, cooling, lighting,
and other energy-consuming building components with more efficient
technologies. We will use this funding to achieve renewable energy
goals established by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007.
Overall, the planned investments are intended to increase energy
security on our installations while reducing the cost of purchased
utilities.
INVESTING IN THE EDUCATION AND TRAINING OF OUR MARINES
Courses and Facilities
A broadly-capable middleweight force will meet future requirements
through the integration of newly acquired and traditional operational
competencies. To remain America's expeditionary force in readiness, the
Marine Corps requires balanced, high-quality training and education at
all levels. As history has repeatedly shown, wars are won by the
better-trained force, not necessarily the larger one. In the midst of
ongoing combat operations, we are realigning our education and training
efforts to enable our marines and sailors to succeed in conducting
distributed operations in increasingly complex environments against any
threat. Training and education, with an emphasis on experimentation and
innovation, will help our Nation maintain global relevance by
developing solutions that continue to outpace emerging threats. These
efforts include continued emphasis on our core values of honor, courage
and commitment, and on building principled warriors who understand the
value of being an ethical warrior. Moreover, in the post-Afghanistan
security environment of reduced defense dollars, we will need to offset
reductions in end strength with better educated and more capable
marines and marine units. The current and future fiscal environment
requires a selective, strategic investment in training and education .
. . put another way, ``When you're low on money, it's a good time to
think''.
Training
Our current training is focused on preparing marine units for
combat, counterinsurgency and stability operations in support of OEF.
If anything, the past 10 years of combat have demonstrated that there
is a positive correlation between quality training and education and
individual/unit readiness; both directly translate to operational
success. Therefore, as we draw-down from Afghanistan, our training will
rebalance to support the execution of a wider range of operational
capabilities. We will achieve this balance by leveraging competencies
in entry-level and skills progression training and by re-emphasizing
core competencies in combined arms and amphibious operations to include
MEB level core capabilities. Training will also feature significant
attention to irregular warfare, humanitarian assistance, and inter-
agency coordination. All our training programs will provide
standardized, mission-essential, task-based training that directly
supports unit readiness in a cost-effective manner.
Specifically, future training will center on the MAGTF training
program. Through a standardized training approach, the MAGTF training
program will develop the essential unit capabilities necessary to
conduct integrated MAGTF operations. Building on lessons learned over
the past 10 years, this approach includes focused battle staff training
and a service assessment exercise modeled on the current exercise,
Enhanced Mojave Viper. Additionally, we will continue conducting large-
scale exercises that integrate training and assessment of the MAGTF as
a whole. The MAGTF Training Program facilitates the Marine Corps'
ability to provide multicapable MAGTFs prepared for operations in
complex, joint, and multinational environments against hybrid threats.
Education
We are making steady progress in implementing the recommendations
of the 2006 Officer Professional Military Education (PME) Study (The
Wilhelm Report) to transform the Marine Corps University (MCU) into a
``World Class Institution''. There are two primary resource components
in doing so--funding for military construction and for faculty and
staff. These two components are not mutually exclusive. New facilities
coupled with increases in resident student through-put require
additional faculty and staff. We will remain engaged with the Congress
over the coming years on the approximately $330 million in necessary
funding for facilities, faculty, and staff as we continue the
transformation of the MCU. This is a high priority for me. This year, I
committed $125 million to get this initiative moving.
We are widening opportunities for resident professional education
by doubling available school seats in courses such as the Marine Corps
Command and Staff College beginning in the academic year 2014. We are
making adjustments to triple through-put at the Expeditionary Warfare
School for our company grade officers. We are increasing enlisted
resident PME courses as well and are adding more distance education
learning opportunities and requirements, especially at the junior
enlisted and noncommissioned officer level.
As we look to ``whole of government approaches'' and the goal of
improved integration in joint and combined operations, we are adding
fellowships to allow more marines the opportunity to benefit from
nontraditional education outside DOD institutions. In the past year, we
have increased our number of marines assigned to the Department of
State and the United States Agency for International Development
through fellowships and the State-Defense Exchange Memorandum of
Understanding. Later this year, we are adding fellowships at the
Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and the Treasury, as well as
at Yale University. We are expanding the scope of training at existing
institutions like the Marine Corps Center for Advanced Operational
Culture Learning and the Center for Irregular Warfare Integration
Division that focus on readying marines for engagement, security
cooperation and partner capacity building missions. Our goal is to
develop a corps of marines that have the skills needed to operate and
engage effectively in culturally complex environments.
Our education and training programs benefit from our relationships
with allies and partners in the international community. Each year,
hundreds of international military students attend Marine Corps
training and education venues ranging from Marine Corps Command and
Staff College to military occupation specialty producing schools. The
International Military Education and Training (IMET) program and
similar security assistance opportunities promote regional stability,
maintain U.S. defense partnerships, and promote civilian control of the
military in student home countries. Many military leaders from around
the world have benefited from the IMET program. To better support DOD's
goal of providing PME to international military students, we have
created a blended seminar program where foreign officers participate in
Marine Corps PME through a mix of nonresident online courses and
resident instruction in the United States.
Training Enablers
In order to fully realize these training and education
enhancements, we will keep investing in the resources, technologies,
and innovations that enable them. This investment includes modernizing
our training ranges, training devices, and infrastructure to ensure
quality resources are available to support the training of marines,
individual to MAGTF. We will also leverage advanced technologies and
simulation systems to create realistic, fully immersive training
environments.
KEEPING FAITH WITH MARINES, SAILORS, AND THEIR FAMILIES
Mission First, Marines Always
We expect and require extraordinary loyalty from our marines and
sailors--loyalty to country, family, and Corps. Our Nation has been at
war more than a decade, placing unprecedented burdens on marines,
sailors, families, wounded warriors, and the families of the fallen.
They have all made tremendous sacrifices, many in the face of danger;
we owe our complete loyalty back to them all.
We will work to ensure the critical needs of our families are met
during times of deployment and in garrison by providing the services,
facilities, and programs to develop the strength and skills needed to
thrive while facing the challenges of operational tempo. If wounded,
injured or ill (WII), we will seek out every available resource to
restore marines to health. We will enable the return to active duty for
those seeking it. For those unable to do so, we will responsibly
transition them to civilian life. We will support and protect the
spouses and families of our wounded and those of our fallen marines.
There are several areas and programs central to our tenet of ``keeping
faith with marines, sailors and their families''.
Recruiting and Retention
As first stated, the individual marine is our greatest asset; we
will continue to recruit and retain the best and brightest of America's
sons and daughters. Recruiting is the lifeblood of our Corps, and is
our bedrock to ``Make Marines, Win Battles, and Return Quality
Citizens''; citizens who, once transformed, will be marines for life.
To operate and succeed in potentially volatile times, marines must be
physically fit, morally strong, intelligent, and capable of operating
advanced weapon systems using the latest technology. We will not
compromise on these standards. Recruiting quality youth ultimately
translates into higher performance, reduced attrition, increased
retention, and improved readiness for the operating forces. We need
your continued support in maintaining quality accessions.
Our officer accessions mission has continued to decline over the
past 2 years in light of a planned draw-down of forces. Our fiscal year
2013 accession officer mission is 1,500 active duty and 125 reserve
officers. For enlisted marines, the accession figures include 28,500
regular (active component) and 5,700 reservists. We traditionally
achieve 100-103 percent of our total accession goals, and expect to do
so again in fiscal year 2013. We have continued to achieve
unprecedented levels of enlisted and officer retention. This effort is
critical to the proper grade shaping of the Marine Corps, regardless of
force size. Combined officer, enlisted, and reserve retention efforts
ensure the Marine Corps maintains essential operational experience and
leadership. Although overall retention is excellent, shortages do exist
in certain grades and skills within the officer and enlisted ranks,
requiring careful management and innovative solutions. At a minimum,
sustained congressional funding to incentivize retention is necessary
to maintaining quality personnel in these critical skill sets.
Diversity
Diversity, in both representation and assignment of marines,
remains a strategic issue. The Marine Corps diversity effort is
structured with the understanding that the objective of diversity is
not merely to strive for a force that reflects a representational
connectedness with the rich fabric of all the American people but to
raise total capability through leveraging the strengths and talents of
all marines. We are near completion of a new comprehensive campaign
plan to focus our diversity effort in areas where improvement is most
needed and anticipate release of this roadmap this year. The accession
and retention of minority officers is an enduring challenge for our
Corps. Mentoring and career development of all minority officers has
become increasingly important in order to change officer profile
projections. Since 2010, we have conducted leadership seminars,
introducing diverse college undergraduates to Marine leadership traits
and leadership opportunities in the Marine Corps, at various locations
throughout our country, and are actively seeking out new communities
within which to continue this effort. Overall, we seek to communicate
the Marine Corps diversity mission through community outreach and
recruit marketing; to ensure continued opportunities for merit-based
development and advancement; and to optimize training and education to
increase the understanding for all marines of the value that diversity
brings to the total force.
Wounded Warrior Outreach Programs
Through the wounded warrior regiment (WWR) and our ever-expanding
outreach programs, the Marine Corps keeps faith with WII marines and
their families. This enduring commitment includes full-spectrum care
and support for WII marines from point of injury or illness through
return to duty or reintegration to the civilian community. The WWR
continues to enhance its capabilities to provide added care and support
to WII marines. Whether WII marines are joined to the WWR or remain
with their parent commands, they are provided nonmedical support
through the recovery phases. Congressional funding for our WII marines
allows us to provide robust, interconnected support in the following
areas:
--administrative support;
--recovery care coordination;
--transition assistance;
--warrior athlete reconditioning programs;
--integrated disability evaluation system support;
--the Sergeant Merlin German Wounded Warrior 24/7 Call Center; and
--our Hope and Care Centers.
The challenging nature of the terrain in Afghanistan requires a
greater level of dismounted operations than was the case in Iraq. This
fact coupled with the prevalence of improvised explosive devices has
caused a growing class of marines and soldiers to suffer catastrophic
injuries--injuries involving multiple amputations that present
significant quality-of-life challenges. Our Corps, the DON, DOD, the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Congress are concerned
about this special group of wounded warriors must remain committed to
supporting this special group of wounded warriors. To help the
catastrophically injured (those who will likely transition to veteran
status) and their families successfully meet these challenges, we must
continue engaging in a high level of care coordination between our WWR
advocates, the VA's Federal Recovery Coordinators, VA Liaisons for
Healthcare stationed at DOD Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs),
Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
Case Managers and medical providers to ensure all of our wounded
marines' needs are met. This includes arranging for assistive
technologies, adaptive housing, and all available healthcare and
benefits (DOD and VA) they have earned. Additionally, WWR's Marine Corp
Liaison assigned at the VA collaborates closely with VA Care Management
team to resolve Marine Corp issues or care management needs.
Combat Health and Resiliency of the Force
Marines, sailors, and their families have experienced significant
stress from multiple deployment cycles, the rigors of combat, high
operational tempos, the anxieties of separation, and countless other
sources from a decade at war. We remain engaged in developing ways to
reduce the traditional stigmas associated with seeking mental
healthcare, but perhaps more importantly, we continue to add resources
and access to care to meet the mental health needs of marines, sailors,
and their families.
Post-traumatic stress (PTS) will be a long-term issue for all DOD
leadership, requiring close attention and early identification of those
affected in every service. PTS is diagnosed as a disorder (PTSD) once
the symptoms become distressful to a marine and his or her ability to
function in the military environment is impacted.\16\ Although most
marines with PTS symptoms will not develop PTSD, our leaders require
the skills and training to identify and intervene earlier for those at
the highest risk of developing PTSD, especially given that often there
are long delays in the development of this condition. As such, we are
empowering leaders to identify and intervene earlier through increased
training and awareness using programs like our Marine Corps Combat
Operational Stress Control program and embedded Operational Stress
Control and Readiness teams in our ground units. We are employing
better screening practices in our standard health assessments,
establishing deployment health clinics (i.e., facilities not labeled as
mental health clinics nor associated with a Military Treatment Facility
in an overall effort to reduce stigma) and tracking those with
significant injuries often leading to PTSD via our wounded warrior
regiment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The current yearly rate of PTS diagnosis in active duty
marines is less than 2 percent as compared to 3.5 percent in the
civilian population. The percentage of marines who will be diagnosed
over their lifetime with PTS is estimated to be 10-18 percent while the
civilian population lifetime diagnosis is estimated to be 6.8 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are engaged on multiple fronts to diagnose and treat those with
a traumatic brain injury (TBI) including prevention, education, early
identification, treatment, rehabilitation, and reintegration. We are
actively implementing the requirements of DOD Directive Type Memorandum
09-033 regarding mild TBI/concussion. Moreover, the Marine Corps, with
Navy support, has established a Concussion and Musculoskeletal
Restoration Care Center in-theater. This center provides front-line
care to patients with mild TBI/concussion and has dramatically improved
identification, diagnosis, treatment, outcomes, and return to duty
rates. In concert with Navy Medicine, we are fielding a TBI module
within the Medical Readiness Reporting System to track TBI exposures
and diagnoses.
Suicide Prevention in the Force
We continue to report a positive, steady decrease in the number of
suicides within the Corps from high levels seen in 2009. While we
cannot yet draw a conclusion between our prevention efforts and the
reduced suicide rate, we are cautiously optimistic our programs are
having a positive effect. However, reported suicide attempts have
continued to increase. We suspect this increase in attempts may be due
to improved surveillance--fellow marines recognizing the signs of
suicide and intervening to stop attempts, and more marines reporting
past attempts when coming forward for help.\17\ Regardless, we still
need to do better because one suicide completed is one too many.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ There were 33 confirmed suicides and 175 attempts in the
Marine Corps during calendar year 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suicide is a preventable loss of life that diminishes readiness and
deeply affects our Marine Corps family. We believe that suicide is
preventable through engaged leadership, focused on efforts aimed at the
total fitness of each marine to include physical, social, spiritual,
and psychological dimensions. The marine corps is involved with five
major studies to better understand suicide risk among servicemembers,
contributing factors, and ways at prevention. This past year, we
expanded our ``Never Leave a Marine Behind'' suicide prevention program
for noncommissioned officers (NCO) and junior marines to the staff
noncommissioned officer and commissioned officer ranks. Our DSTRESS
hotline and Web site, implemented last year on the west coast as a
pilot program, will be expanded to serve those across the Corps. We
will remain engaged on multiple fronts to combat suicide in our ranks.
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
The key to preventing sexual assault is ensuring everyone
understands his or her role and responsibilities in preventing it. A
consistent, vigorous training and education element are crucial.
Bystander intervention has been identified as a best practice for
engaging marines in their role to prevent sexual assault and is being
incorporated into our Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR)
training. In January 2012, we launched the video-based NCO Bystander
Intervention course, called ``Take A Stand''. This course was modeled
after our successful, award-wining Suicide Prevention Program awareness
campaign entitled ``Never Leave a Marine Behind''.
We have initiated aggressive actions to elevate and highlight the
importance of our SAPR program. Our victim-centric SAPR program focuses
on:
--preventing sexual assault;
--improving a victim's access to services; and
--increasing the frequency and quality of information provided to the
victim regarding all aspects of his or her case and expediting
the proper handling and resolution of a sexual assault case.
We are credentialing our Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and
Victim Advocates on victim advocacy. We have standardized training
protocols for our 24/7 hotline, in use at all major bases and stations
to provide information, resources, and advocacy of sexual assault. We
have increased SAPR training at all levels for our judge advocates
(JA). This year, mobile training teams from our Trial Counsel
Assistance Program will continue to instruct Navy Criminal
Investigative Service agents and JAs on sexual assault investigation
and best practices at bases and stations in Japan, Hawaii, and on the
east and west coasts.
Veteran Marines
The concept of keeping faith also applies to our veteran marines.
In 2011, the Marine Corps launched a comprehensive effort to anchor the
legacy of our Montford Point Marines--20,000 African-American men who
underwent segregated training from 1942-1949 and ultimately integrated
the Corps--into our training and education curricula. The Montford
Point Marine legacy will be used to educate and inspire all men and
women who enter the Marine Corps today regardless of race, religion, or
creed. We will teach the importance of varying perspectives,
compassion, courage, perseverance, and self-sacrifice through the
Montford Point Marine history. We are thankful to the Congress for
recently conferring the Congressional Gold Medal on the Montford Point
Marines, a fitting tribute to a pioneering group of marines who fought
valiantly in some of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific and later
went on to serve in Korea and Vietnam.
Family Readiness Programs
As directed in my Planning Guidance issued to the Corps in October
2010, we are in the final stages of a review of all family readiness
programs to identify ways we can better assist and provide services to
our families. Over the past year, Marine Corps Community Services
conducted dozens of focus groups at bases and stations throughout the
Marine Corps with active and reserve component marines, commanders,
senior enlisted advisers and spouses. The focus groups, survey and
prioritization results found that the top-rated programs conformed to
the Commandant's Planning Guidance priorities or congressional
mandates. These assessments revealed opportunities to increase program
success in three areas:
--defining future capabilities and sustainability standards that
correlate to the Commandant's Planning Guidance priorities, but
also recognized unique installation or command missions,
locations, or market conditions;
--balancing available resources to support priorities and defined
capabilities; and
--developing accountability and inspection processes to support
capability sustainment.
Efforts are currently under way to apply these results and develop
actionable program plans and supporting resource requirements to
provide and maintain capabilities at the appropriate level for the
right duration.
With at least 50 percent of our Corps composed of unmarried men and
women, this year we mandated that every battalion and squadron have a
representative from the Single Marine Program serving on its unit
family readiness command team. This will provide an advocate on behalf
of single marines to ensure information, normally communicated solely
from leadership to marine spouses and families, is shared with their
parents and siblings.
Transition Assistance
There are three things the Marine Corps does for our Nation:
--make marines;
--win our Nation's battles; and
--return quality citizens.
We are conducting a wholesale revision of our Transition Assistance
Management Program (TAMP) to better meet the needs of our transitioning
marines in support of returning quality citizens. We are integrating
TAMP, as part of the Professional and Personal Development Program,
into the lifecycle of a marine from recruitment, through separation or
retirement, and through veteran marine status.
We have transformed our Transition Readiness Seminar from a mass
training event, in need of great improvement, into an individualized
and practical learning experience with specific transition readiness
standards that are effective and beneficial to marines. In January
2012, we began holding a revised and improved Transition Readiness
Seminar Pilot Program at four separate installations with full
implementation scheduled for March 2012; early feedback on our pilot
program has been very favorable. The revised 5-day Transition Readiness
Seminar includes 2 days of mandatory standardized core curriculum with
four well-defined military-civilian pathways:
--university/college;
--vocational/technical training;
--employment; and
--entrepreneurial endeavors.
In this new system, a marine will choose the pathway that best
meets his or her future goals and will have access to individual
counseling services related to each pathway. The enhanced TAMP program
will support improved reach-back and outreach support for those who may
require more localized support in their hometowns with information,
opportunities, or other specific needs. We are determined to make the
Marine Corps TAMP program more value added for our departing marines.
Compensation
The President's budget acknowledges the reality that military pay,
allowances, and healthcare consume roughly one-third of the Defense
budget. These costs cannot be ignored in a comprehensive effort to
achieve savings. In my judgment, this budget achieves the appropriate
balance in compensation, force structure, and modernization. It
sustains the recruitment, retention, and readiness of the talented
personnel that defend our Nation.
The proposed compensation reforms are sensible. Basic pay raises in
fiscal years 2013 and 2014 will match increases in the private sector.
We propose more modest raises in later years--but no reductions, no
freezes. TRICARE enrollment fees and deductibles increase for retirees,
but they are tiered based on retired pay and remain significantly below
market rates. Pharmacy co-pays will trend towards market rates for
retail purchases but will be substantially lower for generic drugs and
mail-order delivery.
These changes are not intended to alter care services currently
provided to our active-duty personnel and their families. Those who
have been medically retired as a result of their service, particularly
our wounded warriors, are also exempted. So are our Gold Star families.
It is the right thing to do for those who have given so much.
Finally, I endorse creating a commission to recommend reforms in
retired pay. Any changes should grandfather benefits for those
currently serving. We cannot break faith.
SUMMARY
History has shown that it is impossible to predict where, when, and
how America's interests will be threatened. What is known, however, is
America cannot maintain a strong economy, cannot have a strong
industrial base, cannot have access to overseas markets, and cannot
assure its allies without security . . . at home and abroad. Looking
ahead at the fiscal challenges we face as a Nation, our country will
still need to respond to crisis and project power abroad, wherever and
whenever needed. The optimum and most economical means to do so is
through a multicapable force afloat that can also come ashore rapidly.
The Navy and Marine Corps team is the Nation's risk mitigator for
an unknown future and the crisis response force that will be ``the most
ready when the nation is least ready''. There is a cost to maintaining
this capability. But, with that cost, our Nation gains the ability to
respond to unexpected crises, from humanitarian assistance and disaster
relief efforts, to noncombatant evacuation operations, to the conduct
of counterpiracy operations, raids, or strikes. This same force can be
reinforced quickly to contribute to assured access anywhere in the
world in the event of a major contingency. It can be ``dialed up or
dialed down'' like a rheostat to be relevant across the range of
military operations. No other force possesses the flexibility to
provide these capabilities but yet can sustain itself logistically for
significant periods of time, at a time and place of its choosing.
Through the fidelity and support of the Congress, our marines and
sailors in the fight have received everything necessary to ensure
success over the past decade of near constant combat operations. Our
combat forces' best interests and needs remain my number one focus
until our national objectives in the long war have been achieved.
However, as we rightfully begin to transition to the challenges and
opportunities of the post-OEF world and reorient to the Pacific under
our new Defense Strategic Guidance, the Marine Corps must begin to
rebalance and modernize for the future.
Through judicious choices, forward planning, and wise investments--
ever mindful of the economy in which we live--we have worked diligently
to determine the right size our Corps needs to be and to identify the
resources we will require to respond to crises around the world,
regardless of clime or place. As we continue to work with the Congress,
the Navy, and the DOD in maintaining the institutional pillars of our
high state of readiness, you have my assurance that your Corps will be
``ever faithful'' in meeting our Nation's need for military crisis
response.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you for your testimony and, of
course, for your service.
With Senator Inouye's absence, the way we are going to do
this is we are going to turn to Senator Cochran first. I am
going to call upon members in their order of arrival, and we
are going to ask that we stick to the 5-minute rule because
there are others, and we know there are multiple hearings going
on.
So, Senator Cochran, as the ranking member and a naval
officer yourself, as I believe--weren't you a naval officer?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. I certainly was--one of the proudest
periods of my life, on our heavy cruiser operating out of
Boston, Massachusetts.
Thank you. Let me join you, Madam Chairman, in welcoming
this distinguished panel.
We appreciate your service. We appreciate your leadership.
We want to be sure that we understand the needs that are of
highest priority to all of you as we endeavor to help assure
that our Navy and Marine Corps are the strongest as any in the
world, stronger than any in the world--and are fully prepared
to protect our interests around the world and our safety and
security here at home.
NAVAL FORCE NEEDS
I know that one of the challenges that we face is keeping
an up-to-date naval force with ships and equipment ready to be
used in an emergency. And I wanted to ask Secretary Mabus, who
is fully familiar with shipbuilding in our State of
Mississippi, but in this new responsibility, all of the needs
of the U.S. Navy, could you comment about how well we are or
are not meeting the needs for an up-to-date, modern naval
force?
Mr. Mabus. Yes, Sir. And thank you, Senator Cochran. There
is something about political figures from Mississippi serving
on cruisers out of New England, since both Senator Cochran and
I did that several years ago now.
As I said in my opening statement, Senator, the Navy that
was here in 2009 when I took office was 30 ships smaller, down
from 316 ships on September 11, 2001, to 283 ships in 2009. We
were down almost 47,000 sailors in that time. So, during one of
the great military build-ups in America, the United States Navy
actually got smaller.
One of the primary focuses has been to rebuild the fleet
and increase the size of the fleet. Today, we have 36 ships
under contract to come into the naval fleet. And I do want to
point out that they are all firm fixed-price contracts, that
was one of the challenges that we faced was making sure we got
the right price for our naval vessels.
Going forward, we will--we have 285 ships in the battle
fleet today. At the end of the FYDP, the end of the 5 years, we
will again have at least 285 ships. And by 2019, we will again
pass the 300-ship mark. We have done this by working with
industry. We think that we owe industry certain things--a
stable design, a mature technology, and some transparency into
what ships we hope to build and when.
In response, we think industry owes us some things--to
invest in the infrastructure and the training that will be
necessary; to have a learning curve so that every ship of a
class, of the same type ship that the design does not change,
that the number of man-hours and, thus, the cost goes down. And
in all our shipyards today, in virtually all of our shipyards
today, that this is the case.
Your colleague sitting to your left, Senator Shelby,
working with Austal in Mobile, we have a fixed-price contract
for 10 LCSs from Austal, and the last one will be--the 10th
ship will be significantly cheaper than the first ship.
So I think that your fleet is positioned to do everything
that the new defense strategy requires it to do. The CNO may
want to comment because we are going to have to use our ships a
little differently, forward deploy them so that one ship will
do the job of many more that were--if they were kept in the
United States. But the CNO, Commandant, and I have no doubt
that this fleet that we have today and the one that we are
taking forward will meet all the requirements of the new
defense strategy and everything that we need to do to keep the
United States safe and secure.
Senator Cochran. Admiral Greenert.
NAVAL FORCE CAPABILITIES/NEEDS
Admiral Greenert. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
What I would add, I am on the capabilities end of this, and
I am very satisfied with the capabilities delivered.
The Virginia-class submarine is the finest submarine in the
world, and I have empirical data to attest to that. The DDG-51
remains a multimission, very relevant ship. The LPD-17 class
and the Makin Island are on deployment now, and they are doing
fabulous. The LPD-17 is a quantum leap over its predecessor.
As we bring in LCSs and the joint high speed vessels
(JHSVs), these are relevant ships for a relevant future, and
they resonate with the need out there. We will operate them
forward, and I am very high on them getting the job done.
Volume, speed, and modularity, that is the wave of the future.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
I will reserve my time and ask General Amos a question
later, but yield to other members of the subcommittee.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
Senator Reed.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Senator Mikulski. Now, he is a West Point guy.
Senator Reed. Senator Cochran, Secretary Mabus, and I have
something in common. One of my predecessors at West Point was a
Senator from Mississippi, Jefferson Davis. So it is a small,
small world.
Mr. Secretary, thank you, General Amos, thank you, Admiral
Greenert, thank you for your service and your dedication to the
sailors and the marines that you lead so well.
I want to take off where you left off, Admiral, by saying
that the Virginia-class submarine is the finest submarine in
the world. I agree with that, and I am glad you do, too.
I think it also has operational capabilities, particularly
in the Pacific, where access is a critical issue. In regards to
some of our surface systems, the submarine is far more capable
of access and delivering fires and delivering personnel and
getting intelligence, et cetera. And in that regard, your
colleague, Admiral Willard, said essentially the same thing.
And I just, for the record, I presume you agree with that. It
has a special role in terms of access-denial situations.
Admiral Greenert. Yes, Sir, I do.
VIRGINIA-CLASS SUBMARINE PROCUREMENT
Senator Reed. For the Virginia-class submarine, we are
doing two boats a year in fiscal year 2013. However, in fiscal
year 2014, because of the budget constraints, a ship is being
slipped back to fiscal year 2018.
Given the capabilities, given the new mission in the
Pacific particularly, with a big anti-access component, I think
this is, as you said before, a budgetary decision, not a
strategic or operational decision.
Having said all that, and without getting into any specific
negotiation, are you working on a plan with the contractor to
see if there are ways that we can pull forward some
construction so that the fleet does not lose a valuable asset
for 6 years or so?
Admiral Greenert. Yes, Sir, we are. We are looking for any
fiscal means, if you will, acquisition means, and contractor
performance incentives that we could. As you know, we have a
block-buy of 9, and if we could get to a block-buy of 10 during
those years 2014 through 2018, that would be terrific. And by
all means, we will work by any means capable to do that.
Senator Reed. And that would require, I presume, some help
by this subcommittee in that regard?
Admiral Greenert. Yes, Sir, it would.
OHIO-CLASS SUBMARINE PROGRAM
Senator Reed. So I, for one, would be very happy to help
because I think this is important for the Navy and for the
Nation.
There is another aspect of the submarine program, and that
is the replacement of the Ohio class. And that has been slipped
2 years in terms of proposed construction. Design work is going
on. We have a partner with the British.
And one of the issues that always comes to mind when we
talk about the Ohio-class replacement in its ballistic missile
role is that this is really, in my view, a DOD asset, not just
a Navy asset.
So, Mr. Secretary, have you had discussions with DOD in
ways that they can help you ensure that this slippage is
temporary, and not a sign of failure to fund the program?
Mr. Mabus. Senator, I can assure you that the slippage is 2
years, and that is it. We have also, as you pointed out, we
have been in discussions with our British counterparts to make
sure that the schedule meets up with their requirements as
well. And as you know, we have committed a substantial amount
of money now for the research, development, and engineering
work that will be necessary to begin the build in 2021.
I think that this most survivable leg of our triad, this
strategic weapon that we have in the Ohio-class replacement,
that a discussion needs to be had on exactly how we do pay for
that. That discussion would not only include DOD but also the
Congress in how that is best to be handled. Because the flip
side of that is that our industrial base for the rest of
shipbuilding during the time that the SSBN(X), the Ohio-class
replacement, is being built could be seriously harmed,
including our attack submarine industrial base during that
time. And I don't know of anyone anywhere that would want to do
that.
Senator Reed. No, I hope not. Just a quick follow-on, and
it is probably more of a comment than requiring a comment from
you, is that as we go forward there is a larger issue, which is
the nuclear triad--how it is going to be constituted; what
elements might be bulked up; what elements might not. And that
is in the context both of budget and strategic policy and
nonproliferation policy.
And my view is that the submarine has always seemed to be
the most significant part of this in terms of its
invulnerability, relatively speaking, its ability to deploy,
its stealthiness, et cetera. And so, in those conversations
about the future of the triad, I would hope that the submarine
would be in the forefront.
Thank you. Thank you all.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Coats.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL COATS
Senator Coats. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, first I want to start by thanking you for
visiting the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Crane, in Indiana.
People say, ``What in the world is the Navy doing in Indiana,
the center of Indiana?'' But as you have found out and it is
expressed to me, that it is a little gem out there. Not so
little, but it is a gem out there in terms of electronic
warfare, special missions, a whole number of pretty cutting-
edge stuff that is important to not only the Navy, but the
Marines, Army, and Air Force. So we thank you for that visit.
And I would extend that to Admiral Greenert and General
Amos because what happens there affects both of your services.
And we will throw in an Indiana University basketball game if
we can get our timing right. I would be happy to travel with
you for that visit.
But that really doesn't go to my question. My question is
this. Shortly after the conclusion of Desert Storm I, I was
flying back from Indianapolis with then-Secretary Cheney. And
we spent the entire flight talking about how the history of the
Congress's support and military readiness has gone through the
ups and downs of postconflict drawdowns.
And I asked him, and this was in response to a question I
asked, it was, ``What is your biggest challenge now that we
have had this success?'' And he said, ``Avoiding hollowing out
or drawing down too fast, too far. That is the biggest
challenge in front of me.''
And you know, you go all the way back to World War I and
the hollowing out afterward, and the cost that it was to our
country to rebuild to be prepared to address World War II. And
then, following that, we thought we had solved the world's
problems, and Korea came along. And following that, Vietnam,
Desert Storm, and so forth. And it just seems like, well, I
guess I just really reacted, General Amos, when you said
history has shown it is impossible to predict the how, when,
and where of what might come next. Except history tells us it
is coming somewhere and to be prepared.
So my question is this. The military has stepped up to the
plate relative to nearly $500 billion of cuts over a 10-year
period of time. And you discussed some of that in terms of how
we get there.
My concern is the potential impact, given the kind of
conflicts that we can potentially predict in the future. But
there is always the unpredictable.
SEQUESTRATION IMPACT
But my question to you is this. We have this sequester
sitting there, about to add an additional $500 billion unless
the Congress addresses this before the end of the year. That
was presented as something that would never happen because it
would force decisions relative to how we deal with our budget.
But the ``never'' did happen.
And so, my question to all three of you really is what is
your reaction to this possibility? And what would it mean for
the ability to be prepared and not to be so hollowed out that
we are not prepared for that next how, when, and where?
Mr. Mabus. I will quote the Secretary of Defense, who said,
``It would be a disaster if sequestration happens, not only in
terms of the amount of money that would be taken out of
defense, but also in the way it would be taken out.''
The $487 billion in cuts during the next 10 years, the DOD
has worked very hard over the course of several months to make
sure that this was done carefully, to make sure that we avoided
hollowing out the force, in your term, to make sure that we had
the training, to make sure we had the manning, to make sure
that our force structure could be maintained, and that it was
an effective and lethal force structure that we continued
forward.
Because of the very nature of sequestration, what you would
have is automatic percentage cuts to everything, without regard
to strategy, without regard to importance, without regard to
any sort of setting priorities. And so, both those items would
make sequestration, I think, a very difficult and, again in the
words of Secretary Panetta, a disastrous occurrence.
Senator Coats. Admiral Greenert, do you want to tell us how
it would affect the Navy?
Admiral Greenert. Sir, the way, as Secretary Mabus said,
you know, this going into each and every account, we would have
to prepare for such a thing, probably a few months ahead of
time. And I am just talking about the mechanics of trying to
figure out how to recoup pay, so we can pay our people, pay our
civilians, then get contracts which would, I assume, we would
be in breach because, all of a sudden, there is no funding for
commitments that we have made--the Federal Government has made.
And so, my point is we would have our people distracted for
months, just to do the execution of such a thing to meet the
requirements that the Federal Government is held to.
And that bothers me a lot. I mean, we talked in the past
about, you know, when we have had a threat of a Government
shutdown, and we stopped everything for a few weeks to prepare
for such a thing. This would be that to the nth degree.
And so, I think that is just really not understood. As I
sit down and think about just the mechanics of this, the
amount, we need a totally new strategy for an amount of this
kind. And we can never do what we are doing today under those
kinds of funding. We would need a new strategy, as our bosses
have testified.
Thank you.
Senator Coats. General Amos.
General Amos. Senator, thank you for asking that question.
That is a tough one and one we have talked about often within
the DOD, as you are well aware.
I would like the subcommittee to believe that where we sit
today, and I can speak for my service, we have built a force,
as we come down from 202,000, which is where we sit today, down
to 182,100, we will do that by the end of 2016. That force will
be very capable. It will be anything but a hollow force.
That force will be--the readiness will be high. The manning
will be high. The equipment readiness will be high. So that
force that we have built with this Budget Control Act of 2011
is anything but a hollow force. So I want to put--allay any
fears there.
To go beyond that into sequestration, it is my
understanding that it could happen a couple of ways. One, it
can come with either we are going to preserve manpower and not
take any cuts out of the manpower account, in which case that
leaves only two other areas that you can really--that the cuts
will come from. They will come from procurement, things: ships,
equipment. They will come from my reset of the equipment that I
spoke about in my opening statement, after 10 years of combat.
It will stunt, if not completely negate, my ability to reset
the Marine Corps.
So, if the manpower account is set aside, it is procurement
of things, and then it is operations and maintenance. And what
that means to the subcommittee is that is training. That is the
ability to go to, in my case, Twentynine Palms, to go to the
ranges in the Philippines to train with the Filipinos, to be
able to train with the Australians, to be forward deployed and
forward engaged, to buy fuel, to buy ammunition, to buy the
kind of equipment that we need to train with.
So training and readiness will become what I consider to be
almost a recipe for a hollow force, if we end up in
sequestration.
If you leave manpower in it and you say we are going to
just take a percentage cut across manpower, operations and
maintenance, and the procurement of things, then you are going
to end up with a force that is significantly less dense than
the one we have today. And what that means is less capable. We
will have to go back in, redo the strategy, because the
strategy that we have developed for the last 6 months is a
strategy based on the current budget.
Senator Coats. Well, I thank all three of you.
Madam Chairman, my time has expired, but I think it is a
good reminder to all of us that we have got a pretty big
challenge laying ahead here between now and the end of the
year.
Senator Mikulski. And that was an excellent question. I
think all of the questions have been very good, but yours, I
think, is the one that we all wanted to ask. So, thank you.
Senator Shelby.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, welcome.
Mr. Secretary, you know all of this stuff, the JHSV, which
is the Navy's vessel. I believe it is a valuable addition to
the Navy's fleet. Just for the record, it has an expansive
mission bay of some 20,000 square feet, which enables the ship
to move 600 tons of cargo at more than 35 knots--that is
moving--while carrying more than 300 combat-ready troops.
JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL PROCUREMENT
The Navy's budget request for fiscal year 2013 stops
production of the JHSV at 10 ships, rather than continuing to
build toward the 21 ships that was projected. I know budgets
are tight. We really know that. But it seems it is a pretty
good price. And as you know, the more you build, the better
price you have been able to get in this environment.
What drove the Navy's decision to reduce the JHSV buy? And
is that a decision that we could revisit as the ships enter
service if you see the needs there?
Mr. Mabus. A couple of things drove this decision, Senator.
One was, as you said, finances. We had to find money,
particularly out of procurement accounts, to meet the $487
billion cut over 10 years.
Second is that when you look at our war plans, you look at
the requirements for these JHSVs; the 10 that we have under
contract today will meet all those requirements.
And third, as we were looking at ships to defer, we first
looked at support ships like the JHSV, instead of combat ships
like the LCS.
And so, given that combination of factors, we thought that
stopping the buy at 10 in this FYDP would make sense. The thing
that we give up is engagement capability, using the JHSV to go
around places like Africa or South America to do partnership
training engagement and those sorts of things.
The final thing that we looked at was the health of the
industrial base. And since the JHSV is made in the same
shipyard that the version 2 of the LCS is made, and since the
gear-up of that workforce is going to require the hiring of at
least 2,000 more people during the next couple of years, we
thought that it was a very healthy industrial base, and that at
least for this 5 years, that contract could be ended at 10
without any harm there.
Senator Shelby. You mentioned the LCS earlier. The Navy had
to move two LCS ships out of the 5-year shipbuilding plan. I
hope we can work together. I know the Navy has said good things
about them.
LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP MISSION MODULE READINESS
I am concerned that issues relating to LCS mission modules
have delayed sea trials for the vessel, and that is very
important. How do you plan on dealing with the troubles
affecting the module program?
Mr. Mabus. Right now, Senator, the module program is on
schedule, exactly where we thought it would be.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Mr. Mabus. It has always been a spiral development. We are
doing, in fact, testing today off Panama City on the unmanned
underwater system for LCS. We are using the LCS 2 to do that
testing. And we are absolutely confident that----
Senator Shelby. You feel good about where you are.
Mr. Mabus. I feel very good. Yes, Sir. And I think the CNO
does, too.
Senator Shelby. Admiral.
Admiral Greenert. Yes, Sir. You know, we took Freedom, the
mission modules weren't ready. The surface module was going to
come out first. So we took Freedom, and we said, well, we will
go on down to the Gulf of Mexico. And we needed to shake the
ship down and figure out the concept of operations. So she got
involved in drug operations and took part in two busts.
Then we sent her over to Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC), and
we have had a lot of inquiries about this ship, this new ship
that you brought. That has, I think, subsequently led to,
although I cannot be completely sure it was because of RIMPAC,
but the Singapore Government offered us, invited us to bring
Freedom--in fact, encouraged us to bring Freedom to Singapore
to operate there. And we are going to do that in about a year.
And so, we are moving out with what we call ``sea frames''
because we have got a lot of work to do to get the concept
down. At the same time, as Secretary Mabus said, the mission
modules move apace, as we need them to be integrated.
Senator Shelby. Good.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski, and then Senator Kohl.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And gentlemen, welcome. And I, too, join with my colleagues
in expressing my appreciation for your leadership to our
country. Greatly, greatly appreciated.
ARCTIC OPERATIONS
Secretary, I want to ask you some questions about the
North. It is probably not going to be a surprise to you. But
with the discussion about the shifting focus within the
military toward Asia and the Pacific, when you look at Alaska,
we are sitting right up there on top. We have got a larger
interface with the Asia-Pacific theater than any other State
out there.
We have 5,580 miles of coastline that touch the Pacific and
the Arctic Oceans. And as we all know, this coastline is
becoming certainly more accessible. It presents great
opportunities, but it clearly presents some real challenges as
well.
Can you inform me what the Navy has been doing over this
past year to essentially get up to speed on the changing Arctic
and what the near-term future holds for Navy involvement?
Mr. Mabus. Senator, in 2009, the Navy laid out the road map
for the Arctic, things that we plan to do. And we are following
that road map.
Last year, almost exactly at this time, I was at the Ice
Exercise (ICEX) off the coast of Alaska, where we set up a
camp, as you know, to do scientific work, but also bring last
year two submarines up through the ice to do exercises in the
Arctic.
We also operate with our Canadian allies in Operation
Nanook. We have at least three operations on an ongoing basis,
on a routine basis, in the Arctic.
The one area that we have said before that would be helpful
to us is for the United States to become a signatory to the Law
of the Sea Treaty because it would make dealings in the Arctic,
it would give us easier--it would give us a seat at the table.
It would allow us to state claims on the outer continental
shelf that are certain under the Law of the Sea.
And as we go forward, because the Arctic, as you pointed
out, as the Arctic will become ice free, it appears, within the
next quarter century, at least in the summer, there will be
increased shipping. There will be increased tourism. There will
be increased commerce of all types through there. The naval
requirements in things as diverse as search-and-rescue, as well
as purely military functions, will increase every year.
And we are very focused on our responsibilities in the
Arctic. And I will just repeat, one thing that would help us
would be the Law of the Sea.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I would certainly concur. We want
to be able to work with you to try to advance it. I believe it
is critically important.
I am concerned, though, that while other Arctic nations are
moving forward with policies that build out infrastructure,
that provide assets, that we are not prioritizing it to the
extent possible. But I appreciate your commitment.
It is amazing to me to see the volume of shipping traffic,
the cruise ships that are traveling through these northern
waters. And we recognize that there is not a lot up there if
there were an incident. So it is something that we need to
remain vigilant.
I wanted to ask, I have got a host of different questions,
but I don't know whether we will have a chance to go to a
second round.
SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION PROGRAMS
But I do want to ask about an article that was in
yesterday's news. And this relates to a new Federal lawsuit
where eight members of the military, seven of whom who served
in the Navy and the Marine Corps, have made allegations of
sexual assault. And the allegations contained in at least the
report that I read are pretty serious--a high tolerance for
sexual predators in the ranks, fostering a hostile environment
that discourages victims of sexual assault from coming forward,
and punishing them when they do.
What are we doing, not only within the Navy, but what are
we doing within the military to ensure that there is a level of
safety? That if, in fact, one is a victim, that they are not
further victimized by retribution when they come forward? Are
we making any headway on this?
Mr. Mabus. One of the things that I committed to when I
took this job and one of the things that I have focused on the
most intently is sexual assault in the Navy and Marine Corps.
It is a crime. It is an attack. It is an attack on a shipmate.
And we have a force that is willing to lay down its life
for other shipmates. This should be no different. We have to
make sure that the force understands the severity of this and
is willing to intervene to stop this before it happens. I will
give you some specific things that we have done.
I set up a sexual assault prevention office that reports
directly to me, and I get reports on a very routine basis. And
that office has been going around the fleet, around the Marine
Corps to, number one, find out exactly the size of the problem
and what we can do about it.
Some of the things that have come out of that is that now
in boot camp--coming out of boot camp, we found that programs
inside boot camp were not that effective because there are just
too many things coming at people when they were at basic
training, but that every sailor going to ``A'' School, and
every sailor does go to ``A'' School, they will get three 90-
minute sessions on sexual assault, on how to prevent it, on how
to intervene.
Second, I announced Monday of this week that we are
undertaking a major initiative called 21st century sailor and
marine that has five different areas in it. And one of them is
that people should feel safe.
Some of the things we are doing there is doing everything
we can to remove the stigma of reporting, including--and this
is a DOD-wide effort--some Federal forms that you have to fill
out now for things like security clearances, you would have to
put down counseling that you received after an attack. We have
got to end that requirement. Including, if the victim wants to
go to another command immediately, that person can go to
another command immediately to get away from any sexual
predators that they may have come in contact with.
And the one that got the most press was, we are instituting
breathalyzer for alcohol on duty stations coming aboard our
ships, coming to work at our surface locations. And the reason
we are doing this is because alcohol has been shown to be the
common factor in sexual assault, in domestic violence, in
suicide, in fitness, in readiness.
And we have run a pilot program with Pacific submarines
(SUBPAC) in Washington State, and we have also run a pilot
program at the U.S. Naval Academy using these breathalyzers.
The incidence of sexual assault, the incidence of domestic
violence, of everything across the board has gone down
dramatically when we have done that.
And I just thought if we have that opportunity and we know
that sort of--we could get that sort of response in these pilot
programs, that we had an obligation to put this in fleet-wide
to guard against any not only sexual assault, but also the
other risks that sailors and the marines face.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that, and the
attention and the focus on the safety.
I look forward to welcoming you to Anchorage this summer
when the USS Anchorage is commissioned. We are looking forward
to that visit.
Thank you.
Mr. Mabus. We were at least bright enough to do that in the
summer.
Senator Murkowski. Much better weather and good fishing.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Before I turn to Senator Kohl, I just want to add and
amplify the gentlelady's remarks and yours, Secretary Mabus.
All of the women in the Senate--and we don't have a caucus,
we just come together on where we can find common ground--are
very concerned about women in the military, their ability to
serve and to be promoted and utilized in every capacity.
But this issue of alcohol is something that runs through
all of the services. And for having the Naval Academy in
Maryland, I am on the Board of Visitors, one of the things we
find, because there is unwanted sexual--there is a continuum,
the unwanted sexual contact, which would be very aggressive
coming-on, but it is not assault, it is not harassment--to
harassment, all the way up to a violent, violent situation like
rape.
In 90 percent of those situations at the Academy, again, it
is alcohol, alcohol, alcohol. We would hope that the
Secretaries of all the service academies would look at alcohol
on their campuses the way the Naval Academy is looking at
theirs, lessons learned from civilian universities.
But I really want to encourage you to look at this. We are
not prohibitionists. We understand human behavior, et cetera,
that people are people, and human beings are human beings.
There are two things that contribute to the kind of climate
that Senator Murkowski raised. One, a cultural climate of
hostility. And I think the military has dealt with that and has
been dealing with that for more than 20 years and certainly
this administration and, I believe, Secretary, President Bush
did as well.
But this alcohol thing is big. And it also impedes the
ability to serve and to be fit for duty.
So we just want to encourage you on that. I wanted to just
congratulate the gentlelady for raising that question because
it was going to be one of mine as well.
So, having said that, I am going to turn to Senator Kohl
from Wisconsin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much.
Secretary Mabus, the Navy's budget fully funds the current
plan to split the purchase of 20 LCSs evenly between the
variants built in Wisconsin and Alabama. I support this
approach and commend you for requesting the funding necessary
to carry it out.
LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP PROCUREMENT PROGRAM
However, the Navy's 5-year budget window cuts two LCS ships
after the 20-ship purchase plan is complete. In light of that
proposed cut in future years, does the Navy still support long-
term plans to purchase 55 LCSs?
Mr. Mabus. Absolutely, Senator. The two ships, and it goes
from three to two each year, we lost one ship in 2016, one ship
in 2017, but it was just slid to the right.
We want to build out the 55 ships as quickly as we can. We
still believe in that number and that need for our fleet.
Senator Kohl. Good.
Just to push it to a final comment from you, if the
Congress were to delay the Navy's plans to bring these ships
into the fleet, the Navy's effectiveness would be hurt. I hope
you would agree with that. We understand that the LCS is going
to replace an aging fleet of frigates and minesweepers and that
Navy readiness would suffer without them.
Is that true? And what will happen if the LCS is delayed?
Mr. Mabus. Yes, Sir, the LCS is one of our--one of the
backbones of our fleet today and for the future. As the CNO
mentioned a little bit earlier, Singapore has invited us not
only to bring the first LCS there next year, but also to
forward deploy LCSs in Singapore in the future. And that is
something that we are certainly planning to do and certainly is
going to be one of the prime capabilities that we have in the
Pacific.
Senator Kohl. All the hopes that you had for LCS are on
plan and following, moving along as you guys had discussed?
Mr. Mabus. Yes, Sir. We are--it is an amazingly capable
ship, shallow draft, very fast. But also I think it is one of
the ships of the future because of its modularity.
Because every time the technology improves, every time we
get a different weapons system, we don't have to build a new
ship. We simply pull out the weapons system or the whatever
system off the ship, put in a new one, a different one, and go
back to sea.
And I think that capability, the first three systems, as
you know, are anti-surface, anti-sub, anti-mine, and if you
look at some of the things that we are facing in the world
today, that we are relying, as you pointed out, on patrol boats
and minesweepers, or mine-countermeasure ships to do, we need
this capability very badly.
Senator Kohl. And you are pleased that you are building two
variants on that LCS?
Mr. Mabus. Yes, Sir, I am. I think that they give us a
wider range of options for our operators. As you know, and
thanks to this subcommittee and the Congress, we were able to
buy both variants at a greatly reduced rate.
Both variants are on firm fixed-price contracts. The price
is going down for each successive ship. And we are very pleased
with the shipyards that are building them. We are very pleased
with the product that is coming out.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Collins.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I apologize for being late. The Armed Services Committee is
having a hearing with Secretary Panetta on Syria, even as we
are meeting today. And I clearly need a clone, but I have yet
to figure that out.
Senator Mikulski. We will support that.
Senator Collins. Mr. Secretary, first of all, it is good to
see you again.
DDG-1000 PROGRAM
As you know, Bath Iron Works is building the first two
Zumwalt-class destroyers and will commence construction of the
third DDG-1000 later this year. The first ship was 60-percent
complete when the keel was laid. The construction rework rate
is less than 1 percent, which is astonishing for the first ship
of a new class. And the Navy retired a significant portion of
the program's cost risk during the last year.
I think it would be helpful for the record, in light of the
department's commitment to maintaining combat capability in
anti-access/area denial environments, if you would comment on
the combat capabilities that you expect these three DDG-1000
ships to bring to the fleet.
Mr. Mabus. I will be happy to, Senator. And I would also
like to ask the CNO to follow along after I do.
These ships, with their new stealth technology, with the
fire support for ground troops that they bring, with their
anti-air, anti-surface, anti-submarine capabilities certainly
fit very precisely into the anti-access/area denial areas that
we have planned to use these ships in.
As you know, because of the truncation from 10 ships to 3,
a Nunn-McCurdy breach occurred, but it was solely because the
number of ships went down. At that time, the program was
recertified as crucial to national security, and the building,
the fabrication, at Bath has gone along very well. And I am
happy that we now have the further two, 1001 and 1002, now
under contract so that we can move forward with them to join
the fleet.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Admiral, is another advantage the smaller crew size that
can be used on these ships, given the high cost of personnel?
Admiral Greenert. Yes, Senator. We are talking 100 less on
a ship of a comparable capability, 150 versus 250, for example,
the DDG-1000 being 150.
We don't talk a lot about its undersea capability. It has a
dual-frequency sonar capability, which means it can be
searching for long-range underwater vehicles, submarines, but
at the same time tracking something closer. Eighty-cruise
missile capability, not a lot of people talk about that. That
is extraordinary.
So it has a good land attack mode, the long-range gun,
which we are really excited about, what it will bring--two of
them, advanced long-range projectiles--and it also maintains
three drones. We are going unmanned. It is very important. So
it can employ three unmanned systems, vertical take-off and
landing tactical unmanned air vehicle (VTUAV) Fire Scout or
Fire-X, as well as a helicopter. So it is quite capable. And on
radar, it looks like a fishing boat.
DDG-51 PROGRAM
Senator Collins. Mr. Secretary, your strategy to introduce
competition into the restart of the DDG-51 program earlier than
planned reaps some significant savings for the taxpayer, and I
applaud you for that effort. In addition, it is my
understanding that the Navy estimates that it could save up to
$1.5 billion by exercising multiyear procurement authority for
the DDG-51 program during the next 5 years.
I understand that Senator Reed mentioned some possible uses
for those savings. So I would be remiss if I did not also
follow that line of questioning.
That amount, as luck would have it, would be sufficient to
procure one additional DDG-51 in the 5-year budget window. And
currently, the Navy intends to procure nine ships during the 5
years. But the Navy's own requirements, plus the fragility of
the industrial base, call for an absolute minimum procurement
rate of two large surface combatants per year.
So, Mr. Secretary, if the Navy does reap the savings
expected from the multiyear procurement authority and the
increased competition and you have the opportunity to reinvest
that funding, would adding an additional destroyer in the 5-
year budget window also be one of your priorities?
Mr. Mabus. Senator, we will certainly be requesting
multiyear authority for the DDG-51. I think it is exactly the
type program, and your numbers are accurate in terms of the
savings that we forecast.
What we have done, however, is we have already used those
savings to get the nine ships. Without a multiyear, we would
only be able to procure eight. And so, we have taken the
savings that we anticipate from the multiyear to procure the
ninth ship.
Senator Collins. I am concerned particularly, and I realize
my time has expired, but particularly with the focus on the
Asian Pacific, that we are not going to have enough ships to
really do the job. And I hope that is something that we can
focus on as we set priorities.
Also for the record, I will be, with the chairwoman's
permission, submitting some additional questions involving
investment in our public shipyards. There is a long, long
backlog, which the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
documented.
And unfortunately, there, I believe, is only one new
military construction project identified in this year's budget
request, for Norfolk. And the needs are great at the Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard and elsewhere. So that is something we need to
look at as well.
Mr. Mabus. Madam Chairman, if I could.
Senator Mikulski. Sure.
NAVY FLEET SIZE AND CAPABILITY
Mr. Mabus. Just in terms of numbers of ships, you and I
share the concern, even though the fleet we have today is far
more capable than any fleet we have had before. But one of the
things that I think is important to note is that at the end of
this 5 years, this FYDP, we will have the same size fleet, in
spite of some early retirements of ships, in spite of the
requirements of the Budget Control Act of 2011, in spite of
having to defer the building of some ships, and that by 2019 we
will be back at 300 ships. We will build the fleet to 300 ships
because at some point, as we have discussed, quantity becomes a
quality all its own.
So, thank you, Senator.
Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Collins, and also to other
Senators, I know their staffs are here, the record will remain
open for subsequent questions of members, and also Senator
Inouye will be submitting his questions for the record.
I have some questions of my own. I really wanted to be at
this hearing because we in Maryland, we are a Navy State. We
are not just a Navy State. We love our Army presence, whether
it is the National Security Agency at Fort Meade or Aberdeen or
its bases. We love the Air Force because of being there at
Andrews.
But we are crazy about the Navy. We have the Naval Academy,
Naval Bethesda.
Mr. Mabus. Your ardor is returned, Senator.
Senator Mikulski. Well, we will get to that--Naval
Bethesda, Pax River, the Office of Naval Intelligence.
USNS COMFORT RELOCATION
And we think we offer a fantastic set of home ports. We are
the home port to the Constellation. We are the home port to the
10th fleet, the dynamic, cyber 10th fleet that has no aircraft
carrier, submarines, or whatever, but is defending the fleet.
And we are also the home to the Comfort.
Now, we feel real bad that we are going to lose the
Comfort. And in fact, we feel so bad in Maryland that it has
the same magnitude, if you were in Baltimore when we heard the
Comfort was going to leave us, we have had the same feeling as
when the Colts left us.
And I am not joking. We love the Comfort, the hospital ship
that we have watched since 1987 steam down the bay for really
significant missions, serving the Nation, whether it has been
to respond to Desert Storm, and we were there along with the
hospital ship Mercy, whether it was responding to 9/11 off the
coast of New York, where Senator Collins and I stood side-by-
side looking at the wreckage and the debris, and so on.
So I want to know how we can keep the Comfort in Baltimore?
Mr. Mabus. Senator, the decision to move Comfort was a
purely financial one. The pier in Baltimore is a private pier
that we pay a little more than $2 million a year to keep the
Comfort berthed there. The pier that it will be moving to is a
Navy pier. So we will save in excess of $2 million a year to
move the Comfort.
Two other things went into the decision. One was the
facilities at the new pier for the ship and its permanent crew,
the 57 permanent crew members. And the other was that, as
Comfort is manned by medical professionals----
Senator Mikulski. You have two mannings. You have those who
keep the ship afloat and operational, and then you have this
extraordinary medical team that is just amazing.
Mr. Mabus. Me, too. And that manning has changed over the
years so that most of those health professionals now--doctors
and nurses--come out of Portsmouth, Virginia, the hospital
there, instead of the way they used to, out of Bethesda.
And so, those were the things that went into the decision.
But it was primarily financial.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I have a couple of questions about
that.
First of all, let us go to the pier part of it. And I
understand we are in a frugal environment. That has been the
point of the testimony and many of your comments as you support
the Secretary of Defense and the President's initiative to have
a more frugal but still muscular defense. We understand cost.
But tell me about this pier. Don't you have to build a new
pier for the Comfort?
Mr. Mabus. No, ma'am. We upgraded the pier----
Senator Mikulski. And how much did that cost?
Mr. Mabus [continuing]. To provide for the Comfort. Three
and a half million dollars.
Senator Mikulski. So it cost $3.5 million to upgrade it?
Mr. Mabus. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. Now, let us go to the mission. And I
understand the fact that the manpower used to be at Naval
Bethesda. So I don't dispute that.
But have you looked at the hurricane impact? Let me be
specific so this isn't a trick question.
The Comfort, since the Comfort has deployed since 1987, I
think, 9 or 10 times, two-thirds of that has been during
hurricane season. Literally, when it went down the bay, it has
been hurricane season. What Norfolk has to do when hurricanes
come is they have to go to sea.
Okay. So the President says send the Comfort to wherever.
It has been to Haiti, you know, and God knows what lies ahead,
given the turmoil in the world.
So, have you looked at the hurricane impact statement, that
while it is berthed at Norfolk, you are in a hurricane, the
Comfort is out at sea riding it out, but you have to get ready
to deploy? Have you looked at the hurricane impact?
Admiral Greenert. I can't tell you that we have, Senator.
What we would do is we would sortie the ship, like we do with
the others. And I think that is your question, the cost to
sortie----
Senator Mikulski. I don't know the military lingo. I just
know----
Admiral Greenert. We would get underway. The ship gets
underway----
Senator Mikulski. Because while we are looking at Norfolk
during the hurricane, we are up the coast at Ocean City, and so
on.
Admiral Greenert. Right.
Senator Mikulski. So we are all kind of in it together. So,
go ahead.
Admiral Greenert. I have to take it for the record, so that
I--because I would want to make sure I understand your
question.
I believe this ship will have to get underway like the
other ships in Norfolk do when there is a hurricane in the
region. And so, have we accommodated that factor, as opposed to
remaining in Baltimore, the number of times ships sortie
because of weather in Norfolk versus weather in Baltimore? I
think that is your question, Senator.
Senator Mikulski. Yes.
Admiral Greenert. I have to get back to you on that and see
what that would be.
Senator Mikulski. Well, Admiral, I would really appreciate
this.
Admiral Greenert. Sure.
[The information follows:]
After revising our cost estimates to account for hurricanes, the
case for moving USNS Comfort to Norfolk remains cost effective. The
Navy will still save approximately $2 million annually. Details are as
follows:
USNS Comfort has not conducted a weather sortie from her berth in
Baltimore in the past 10 years, while Navy ships homeported in Norfolk
have conducted two weather sorties during this period. If USNS Comfort
was berthed in Norfolk, each weather sortie would incur operational
costs of $0.5 million (assumes a 5-day sortie at a cost of $100,000/
day). Over a 10-year period, two sorties would thus cost $1 million (2
$0.5 million) or an average of $0.1 million/year.
Despite the potential operational cost for USNS Comfort to conduct
weather sorties, the decision to berth her in Norfolk remains cost
effective. Our report to the Congress on the Cost Benefit of Relocation
of USNS Comfort estimated a $2.1 million/year savings. Factoring in the
contingency of weather sorties reduces this estimate by $0.1 million to
$2 million/year in savings. Also, the location in Norfolk would reduce
the transit time to open ocean by 12 hours compared to a Baltimore
berth.
Senator Mikulski. You know, it is my job to fight to keep
the Comfort----
Admiral Greenert. I understand.
Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Both for economic reasons
and jobs, and yet we have developed just an affectionate
relationship. And I think the crew of the Comfort feels the
same, that we are a welcoming home port.
So, Mr. Secretary, with the cooperation of the Admiral, I
would like you to look at that impact and see if it affects
your judgment so we get to keep the Comfort.
If we cannot, if we cannot--and facts must speak for
themselves--would you also take the opportunity to look and see
if there are other home port opportunities for us? Because we
have a 50-foot channel, we now have port capacity that is going
to welcome the new ships coming through the Panama Canal. And
if we can welcome these new ships from the canal, we sure would
like to welcome a vessel from the United States Navy.
We have the Constellation, the older ship. We would welcome
a new ship, and we would love to keep the Comfort.
Would you take a look at----
Mr. Mabus. We would be happy to look at both of those. Yes,
Ma'am.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, thank you.
General Amos, there is one question that I omitted asking
for the record to you, and it relates to our amphibious warship
fleet lift capacity.
AMPHIBIOUS SHIP REQUIREMENTS
What I would like to have for the record is what is the
current inventory of amphibious ships in the fleet? And what is
the maximum lift requirement? And are there operational
readiness concerns? And are you aware of any unmet combatant
commander demands for amphibious ships?
General Amos. Senator, I can answer, I think, all of those
or at least get a head start on those things, and we will come
in on the record for the rest of it.
But I believe the current inventory--and John, Admiral
Greenert can just keep me honest here--I think our current
inventory is at 29 today, amphibious ships.
We have a few decommissions coming underway. We have some,
as you know, new construction. I made a comment about 2 weeks
ago that the agony that the CNO and the Commandant and the
Secretary of the Navy went through in this FYDP cycle to cut
Solomon's baby, to try to determine, what ships, you know,
where are we going to spend our money was, I think, very
responsible.
And I think, from my perspective, I mean, I would like to
add 55 amphibious ships, but we can't afford it. My sense right
now is that I am very satisfied with what we have done inside
this FYDP.
There is going to be an effort underway over the next
little bit to take a look at what is our real requirement? We
know how much it takes to put a marine expeditionary brigade on
a ship. That takes 17 amphibious ships. So if you just say,
okay, let's put one of these brigades onboard, what is it going
to take? It is 17.
Well, our Nation has an agreed-upon requirement for two of
these in a forcible entry operation. Well, that is a lot of
ships, and we can't afford that.
[The information follows:]
Question. What is the current inventory of amphibious ships in the
fleet?
Answer. There are currently 28 amphibious warships in the fleet.
Question. What is the maximum lift requirement?
Answer. The Department of the Navy has identified a requirement of
38 amphibious warships to lift two Marine Expeditionary Brigade assault
echelons. Compelled by fiscal realities, we have accepted risk down to
33 ships. Thirty operationally available ships is the baseline number
to support day-to-day operations.
Question. Are there operational readiness concerns?
Answer. We currently have 27 operationally available amphibious
warships in the inventory. With the commissioning of the USS San Diego
(LPD 22) during May 2012, the number of operationally available
amphibious ships will rise to 28. The current inventory does not
support operational plan (OPLAN) lift requirements and defers critical
warfighting capability to follow-on-shipping, and increases closure
time. Additionally, it does not fully support single-ship deployer
requirements requested by combatant commanders to meet their theater
engagement plans. Last, there is little flexibility in the amphibious
warship inventory, limiting the Navy's ability to provide a ``reserve''
in the case of a catastrophic casualty to a ship or class of ship.
Question. Are you aware of any unmet combatant commander demands
for amphibious ships?
Answer. Specific demand signals are classified and can be provided
in a separate venue; however, the overall delta between global
combatant command demand of Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary
Units and what has actually been sourced for fiscal year 2012 is 53
percent. For independent amphibious warship deployers, less than 10
percent of global combatant command demand is sourced.
General Amos. So we are working right now, you know, what
is it we can't afford? What are the elements of risk, as you
come off of the number? And then how do you mitigate that risk?
Because there are ways that you can mitigate risk.
But as the Secretary said, quantity has a quality all its
own. It does reach a point, there is a knee in the curve where
we want to make sure that we have the ability to be able to put
these, deploy this forcible entry force. Hard to imagine that
it could ever happen. It is almost out of the realm of our
imagination. But let me give you a sense for magnitude.
When we surrounded the town of Fallujah in the fall of
2003--excuse me, 2004, we put 5 marine infantry battalions
around there, 3 Army battalions, and 2 Iraqi battalions--10
infantry battalions. What we are talking about here for this
forcible entry capability for the entire United States of
America are basically six battalions, or two brigades worth of
marines coming ashore.
So when you think of relativity, it is a pretty nominal
capability for a nation that is a global power, that somewhere
down the road may have to exercise its forcible entry
capability.
Does that answer your question, Sir?
Senator Cochran. It does. Thank you very much.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, General Amos, and Admiral
Greenert, first of all, I think the subcommittee really wants
to thank you for your service and for your leadership. In
thanking you, we want to thank all the men and women who serve
in the Navy and the Marine Corps.
So, for those who are active duty, Reserves, and part of
our civilian workforce that supports the Navy, we really just
want to say thank you in every way and every day.
FORCE SIZE AND DEPLOYMENT IMPACT
I want to ask a question really that then goes to
deployment and our families. One of things we know that the
health and vitality of our military personally--the individual
soldier, sailor, airman, and marine--often depends on the
frequency of the deployment.
With the drawdown of personnel and the fact that we are
still in combat, my question to you is, given this current
manpower that is being recommended in the appropriations, how
do you see this affecting the deployments? Will they deploy
more frequently? Will they deploy less? What is your view on
that?
Admiral, can we start with you, and then go to General
Amos?
Admiral Greenert. Yes, Senator.
The demand signal which defines our deployment is called
the global force management allocation plan. It is the
distribution, the allocation of forces around the world. And
one of the in-going foundations, if you will, or givens, for
our budget as submitted and that we signed up to was what we
call--my process is called the fleet response plan. And I
respond to the global force management allocation plan.
We established what that is, and I am comfortable that we
can--and it will be less deployments than today, subject to the
world voting and things changing.
The thing, the key in this is the combatant commanders'
having a request for forces. This is a supplemental to the
plan, if you will. Today, we are living with a fairly extensive
number of requests for forces. These are deployments over and
above what the budget is laid out to give. And due to the
generosity, if you will, the support of this subcommittee and
the Congress through the overseas contingency operations (OCO)
appropriation, we are able to reconcile that.
So what I am telling you, Senator, is with the plan, the
global force management plan that is laid out there, I am
comfortable. If we are unable to, if you will, sustain that
appetite for additional forces, then there is going to be a
stress on that, and we are going to be deploying more than what
is assumed in this budget. And that will be difficult.
Senator Mikulski. General.
General Amos. Senator, several years ago, I remember
answering your question about what would be the ideal what we
call deployment-to-dwell ratio. And that is----
Senator Mikulski. That is exactly what I am trying to also
get at.
General Amos. Right. And it is deployment-to-dwell. And
that was at the height of when the Marine Corps, my service,
was essentially almost on a 1-to-1. So you are gone 7 months,
and you are home 7 months. And while you are home at 7 months,
you are training and you are doing all these things. So it is
not like you are home in your house for 7 months. But that
becomes a 1-to-1.
We are sitting today in our infantry battalions, which is
the standard unit of measure in the Marine Corps--everything
else is built around an infantry battalion--at about 1
deployment to 1.5, which means you are gone for 7 months and
you are home for 10, 11.
Now, I will tell you that is going to change dramatically
this year. As the Marine forces come down, as that surge force
comes down in Afghanistan that we have talked about, our
deployment-to-dwell ratio will increase. In other words, we
will have more time at home.
So, as I look at a post-Afghanistan world, and I think
about now being forward deployed and forward engaged in the
Pacific, and being in Okinawa and being in Guam and being down
in Australia, and doing all the things that marines do, my
sense is that even at a 182,000 force--in other words, that
force that we are going to go down to--that we will, when it is
all said and done, we will settle down to something more than a
1-to-2 deployment-to-dwell.
So it will probably be--we will have some units that are 1-
to-3. In other words, you are gone, we will get out of the 7-
month deployments. We will get back to 6. You are gone 6
months, then you are home 18 months. And marines get bored. And
quite honestly, they like to deploy, and they like to be out at
the cutting edge. So that is the 1-to-3 that we would probably,
as a Nation, like our services to all kind of be at.
Are we going to ever see that again? I don't know. Will I
be happy if I see 1-to-1.2, as a Commandant? Yes. Will the
marines be happy? I think so. I think we are going--that is
where we are headed. So I think if we are just patient for
about another year, we will get this recocked and reset back to
I believe where you would like to see it, Senator.
Senator Mikulski. Well, what I would like to see is that I
know that our Marines and our Navy like to fight. That is why
they join the military. I mean, like to be ready to protect and
defend, and we love them for it. We really do.
And part of that love for them is to protect them while
they are protecting us. Our job is to protect them. And
deployment and the rate of deployment, the ratio of deploy-to-
dwell has a dramatic, demonstrable effect now. We know this
from our experiences on their physical and mental health.
So I am for them. And I know you are. God knows, I know you
are. And so, I want to be sure that, as we look at the forces
that we are going to have, we protect them as they protect us.
And Mr. Secretary, and I would hope the Service Secretaries
and the Secretary of Defense also speak out at hearings, that
if we are going to reduce the number of our military, we need
to be careful with our rhetoric about where we want to just
send them. So just know that. I think all of us want to work
with you on it.
SERVICEMEMBER TRANSITION PROGRAMS
And then that goes to my last question. After they serve
and they are ready to be discharged, I worry that they have
jobs. I just worry about that. And I know many of the Members
do. The women have talked about this. So, often when they are
discharged, is there an actual plan that helps them sort out
where they can work?
And also, it was something, I think, Mr. Secretary, you in
your old hat as a Governor said, sometimes they had these
fantastic skills in the military and serve us so well and
bravely, but it doesn't count toward licensing in their home
State. So we have heard about just wonderful people that have
done incredible Medical Corps service in the most grim and
violent of circumstances, where their performance has been
amazing to prevent mortality and morbidity, and then it didn't
count for anything when they came home to get a job, where we
have a civilian workforce shortage--EMTs, nursing, et cetera.
Could I ask you, Mr. Secretary, and so I know I am going
over my time, really, first of all, I think their service ought
to count, and I think it ought to count in every State in the
United States of America. Are you looking at that? And then,
also, can you tell me about the discharge planning that goes on
so that we help them be able to find their way in the civilian
workforce?
Mr. Mabus. I would very much like to talk about that.
In terms of credentialing, whether it is for things like
nurses or other things, two things spring to mind. One is the
First Lady's initiative to make sure that every State in the
Union signs up to accept credentials from particularly military
spouses. Because we ask our military to move a lot. Military
spouses who are nurses or realtors or anything else that
requires a certificate or a license sometimes have to wait 6
months or a year when they get there.
Second, for the members of the service, we have a thing
called Navy COOL, which is Credentialing Opportunities On-Line.
Senator Mikulski. ``Cool,'' like ``You are a cool guy?''
Mr. Mabus. You are a cool guy.
Senator Mikulski. Okay. Is it C-O-O-L----
Mr. Mabus. I think that is why they picked it. No, it is C-
O-O-L, Navy COOL. And what it will----
Senator Mikulski. I notice it is not ``CNO.''
Mr. Mabus. Well, he is a pretty cool guy, too.
Senator Mikulski. Yes. You all are.
Mr. Mabus. Navy COOL allows sailors to go online, get the
certificate that they need to match the job they are doing in
the military with a civilian credential. And we have this lined
up with every naval job, what is a comparable civilian job and
if you need a credential. And if you are leaving the Navy, we
will pay for the things that you need to do to get that.
Senator Mikulski. Get that credential.
Mr. Mabus. Get a credential.
SERVICEMEMBER TRANSITION ASSISTANCE
The other things I want to talk about, and CNO and
Commandant may want to give some more detail, too, as people
separate from either the Navy or the Marine Corps, we are
taking that transition very seriously. We are giving one-on-one
counseling. We are doing things like, if you want to go to a
job fair anywhere in the United States, we will pay for you to
go there.
If you are overseas when you are being separated, we
guarantee you 60 days back in the United States before that
separation. The marines have a four-door process of ``Tell us
where you want to aim for.'' Do you want to aim for more
education? Do you want to aim for apprenticeship? Do you want
to aim for a certificate? Or do you want to aim to go right
into the job market? And we will send you through the
preparation to do that.
And the last thing I would like to say is that the Navy
itself has taken it very seriously. Last year, we hired in the
Navy almost 13,000 former sailors and marines to come in as
civilians once their service was finished because they have a
lot of the skills that we need. So far this year we have hired
almost 3,000.
And we feel a special obligation to our wounded warriors.
We have had two hiring conferences with private employers for
wounded warriors, both of which all three of us have spoken at.
The second thing, though, is that the Department of the
Navy, through Naval Sea Systems Command, NAVSEA, had a goal
last year of hiring at least one wounded warrior per day for
the entire year, and we exceeded that. We hired more than 400
wounded warriors into NAVSEA.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, I am going to ask you not
only for the record, but for me personally, if I could have
whatever your policy papers are on this, because I want to talk
to my colleagues about how we can promote the First Lady's
initiative not only in the budget. And I know both the Admiral
and General could elaborate, but the hearing is getting longer.
[The information follows:]
Prior to 2009, the Department of the Navy (DON) had several
initiatives and programs for hiring wounded warriors, but these efforts
were consolidated under Executive Order 13518, ``Employment of Veterans
in the Federal Government'' which DON now follows as its guiding
policy. DON utilizes the Defense Outplacement Referral System (DORS) to
help wounded warriors find employment opportunities within the
Department of Defense (DOD). Wounded warriors who register in DORS have
the opportunity to upload their resumes which are then available to
hiring managers across DOD. DON is committed to recruiting and
employing veterans, and our HR Wounded Warrior Coordinators help
qualifying veterans register in DORS; 976 wounded warriors have been
hired in fiscal year 2012.
In compliance with Executive Order 13518, DON provides the required
veterans' employment training via human resources reference guides,
online education tools, and in-person seminars. DON also recently
published a wounded warrior reference guide for the use of employers,
managers, and supervisors which provides information on how to
successfully support veterans who have transitioned to the civilian
workplace.
Senator Mikulski. And then I think there will be some of us
who will want to take this on ourselves. You know, when World
War II ended, we had a tremendous demand for workers and so on.
And again, as part of it, if you are going to get out there and
protect and defend us and be in the front line, we don't want
them on the unemployment line.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
And so, we would like to work with you to really, really
ensure that. I would like to have the policy papers and do
that.
So, Mr. Secretary, Admiral Greenert and General Amos, we
want to thank you for your testimony and for your service.
Senator Inouye also said to please commend his regards to you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Ray Mabus
Questions Submitted by Chairman Daniel K. Inouye
END-STRENGTH REDUCTIONS
Question. Secretary Mabus, as part of the fiscal year 2013 budget
proposal, the Department of Defense (DOD) has put forward a plan to
reduce the size of the active duty Navy by 6,200 sailors and Marine
Corps by 20,000 marines over 5 years. What is the plan for reducing the
force beginning in fiscal year 2013, and what are the risks associated
with this downsizing?
Answer. Navy and Marine Corps end-strength reductions are a result
of DOD Strategic Guidance released January 2012. This guidance
emphasizes a smaller, leaner force structure that is agile, flexible,
ready, innovative, and technologically advanced. This quality force is
fully capable of executing its assigned missions, and is a force with
capabilities optimized for forward-presence, engagement, and rapid
crisis response. It also balances capacity and capabilities across our
forces while maintaining the high levels of readiness on which the
Nation relies.
Navy end-strength reductions are primarily the result of changes in
force structure, such as ship decommissionings. To manage these
reductions, the Navy will primarily rely on voluntary measures and
attrition, before resorting to involuntary actions. The challenge is to
shape and balance the force to achieve a mix of officers and enlisted
personnel that ensures the right person, with the right skills is in
the right job at the right time.
Marine Corps end-strength reduction result from right-sizing the
Marine Corps to meet the anticipated security environment and needs of
the Nation after the drawdown in Afghanistan, and the impacts of the
Budget Control Act of 2011 on DOD budgets. This force adjustment
follows the Marine Corps growth of 27,000 marines in 2006 and 2007. The
force funded in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget request is
fully capable of executing all assigned missions in the new strategic
guidance, and is a force with capabilities optimized for forward-
presence, engagement and rapid crisis response. It balances capacity
and capabilities across our forces while maintaining the high levels of
readiness for which the Nation relies on the Marine Corps.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has approved the use of
several force shaping tools as we reduce Marine Corps end strength by
approximately 5,000 marines per year beginning in fiscal year 2013. The
Marine Corps will accomplish the drawdown by maximizing the use of
voluntary measures such as attrition and early separation/retirement
authorities. This reduced level of end strength creates some additional
risk in capacity as the operating force manning levels will go from 99
percent for both officer and enlisted ranks to 95 percent for officers
and 97 percent for enlisted; however, it is a manageable and affordable
solution that maintains a ready, capable, and more senior force in
support of the new strategic guidance.
This enduring strength level and force structure ensures that the
Marine Corps retains the necessary level of noncommissioned officer and
field grade officer experience and war-fighting enablers to support the
future security environment. The Marine Corps drawdown plan ensures the
Marine Corps remains the Nation's expeditionary force in readiness
while simultaneously keeping faith with our marines and their families
who have excelled during the last 10 years of combat operations.
BIOFUELS
Question. Secretary Mabus, I am encouraged by the administration's
proposal on biofuels and your leadership in DOD on alternate energy and
biofuels in particular. I have heard concerns raised questioning the
rationale for DOD's participation in this initiative. Can you comment
on the national security justification for DOD's involvement in the
biofuels project? Furthermore, does the administration still support
this tri-Agency initiative?
Answer. By continuing to rely on petroleum fuels, DOD is subject to
price volatility in the global petroleum market and bears potential
exposure to foreign supply disruptions. Last year after the Libyan
crisis occurred, the price per barrel charged by the Defense Logistics
Agency (DLA) energy increased $38 to $165 per barrel. With this
increase in the price of a barrel of oil, the Department of the Navy
(DON) realized a $1.1 billion increase in our fuel bill. These midyear
increases equate to less flying hours, less steaming hours, and less
training, ultimately impacting readiness. Additionally, national
security is threatened by the potential to be physically cut off from
foreign sources of petroleum.
Because of the imperative for energy and national security, DON
believes the United States must reduce its dependence on petroleum but
especially foreign oil. DON is making investments in the American
biofuels industry because this is vital to our operations. This effort
can help to dampen price volatility while also developing an assured
domestic source for tactical fuels. Currently, the Navy uses about 50
percent of its tactical fuels stateside, and 50-percent deployed
overseas. The stateside portion is where most of our crucial training
and readiness events take place. When petroleum prices exceed budget
forecasts or supplies constrained, the amount of training can get
reduced. To ensure the Navy is ready to serve national interests, this
training must not be subject to the vagaries of the petroleum market.
Domestically sourced and produced advanced alternative fuels could
provide energy security for training and readiness and more budgetary
certainty as alternative fuel prices will not move directly with the
petroleum prices. The need to find cost competitive alternative fuels
has never been greater. Unrest in Libya, Iran, and elsewhere in the
Middle East drove up the price of a barrel of oil by $38, which
increases Navy's fuel bill by more than $1 billion. Because every $1
rise in a barrel of oil is effectively a $30 million unbudgeted bill to
the Navy, in fiscal year 2012 the Navy is facing a $1 billion
additional fuel cost because the price has risen faster than that
estimated when the budget was passed.
The administration is 100 percent behind this ``tri-Agency
initiative''. Currently, the three agencies participating (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, and DON) expect to
contribute $170 million each to the effort for a total of $510 million.
There is a minimum requirement that industry provides a 1-to-1 cost
share, resulting in a total investment of at least $1 billion.
With the total investment, DON anticipates that multiple integrated
biorefineries could be constructed through new builds and retrofits.
This investment, combined with a strong demand signal for alternative
fuels from the military and commercial sector, will be the impetus
necessary to sustain the overall alternative fuels industry sector.
Creating a strong, domestic fuel market that insulates the United
States from foreign oil and price volatility has been, and continues to
be, a goal of the current administration.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
BROAD AREA MARITIME SURVEILLANCE--GLOBAL HAWK
Question. Secretary Mabus, as you know, the Air Force has decided
to cancel the Global Hawk Block 30 program and announced it does not
intend to procure the last three assets appropriated in the fiscal year
2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It is expected this
will have a negative effect on the supplier base and will more than
likely increase the unit price given the reduction of units procured.
Given the Navy's Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program is
based upon the Global Hawk airframe, do you think the unit cost will
increase now that the Air Force has decided to cancel the Global Hawk
Block 30 and has decided not to procure the last three assets
appropriated in the fiscal year 2012?
Answer. The cancellation of the Global Hawk Block 30 adds risk of
some cost increases to the BAMS program. The unit cost impact will
primarily affect the System Demonstration Test Articles (SDTA) and Low
Rate Initial Production Lot 1 since these procurements are below the
minimum sustaining production rate of four aircraft per year.
Question. Do you anticipate a break in the production line?
Answer. There is risk of a production line break if North Atlantic
Treaty Organization Alliance Ground Surveillance does not procure an
aircraft in at least 1 of the slots planned for Global Hawk lot 11.
Question. How will a break in production affect the Navy's BAMS
program?
Answer. Exact cost impacts to BAMS Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
are being discussed with the prime contractor. If a production line
break is avoided and only a delay occurs, costs are estimated to
increase by at least $40 million for the SDTA lot with additional
potential cost for low rate initial production (LRIP) 1 lot. However,
if a production line break occurs then the costs are estimated to be
closer to $220 million, $140 million immediate impact plus $80 million
across total production for lost learning. The most significant impacts
are felt if a supplier business fails; work to identify impacts at this
subtier supplier level is ongoing.
Question. If you anticipate an increase in unit cost, will the Navy
still be able to procure the 68 aircraft you intend to buy?
Answer. The Navy does not anticipate the BAMS UAS unit cost to
increase above the current Acquisition Program Baseline estimate
developed at Milestone B. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Navy
will continue with plans to procure all 68 aircraft.
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
Question. This past January 20, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta
announced ``there had been enough progress in fixing technical problems
on the Marine variant that he could reverse the decision by his
predecessor, Secretary Robert M. Gates, to put the plane on a
probationary testing status. However, the President's fiscal year 2013
budget slowed the acquisition of the Joint Strike Fighter by 69
previously planned aircraft to outside the Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP) to save $15.1 billion in savings. Lockheed-Martin has stated
they have fixed their production and suppliers issues and are ready to
accelerate their production line. It is a well-known fact that in order
to achieve economies of scale you need to maximize your production
capacity and supplier base to get the best price and yet that is
exactly opposite of what we are doing here.
Mr. Secretary, in your opinion based on the testing data known to
date, is the Joint Strike Fighter mechanically sound given its current
design?
Answer. Yes. The three F-35 variants are encountering the types of
development problems historically encountered on highly sophisticated
state-of-the-art high performance aircraft development programs at this
stage of maturity. While risks do remain in the balance of the
development and flight test program, there are no known design issues
that cannot be overcome by effective engineering. The program's
management over the past year has put in-place the right fundamentals
and realistic plans using sound systems engineering processes, and we
are monitoring and tracking performance using detailed metrics.
Additionally, the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) commissioned an internal/
independent quick look review (QLR) of the F-35 program during 2011.
This USD(AT&L) review also found that while risks remain in the program
the overall F-35 design is sound.
Question. If it is--what is the projected cost comparison of buying
the 69 aircraft within the FYDP and retrofitting the necessary changes
as compared to delaying the 69 and potential increased unit cost?
Answer. The cost to retrofit 69 aircraft within the FYDP is
approximately $10 million each (fiscal year 2013-fiscal year 2017). The
cost of delaying the aircraft procurement increases the average
aircraft unit recurring flyaway (URF) cost over the total buy profile
by $4-$6 million depending upon the variant.
Question. What is the new projected unit cost if the 69 aircraft
are delayed?
Answer.
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 (SAR 11 REPORT) URF
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional take-off and landing (CTOL)....... 127.3 118.0 104.4 94.5 90.6
Carrier-variant (CV)........................... 148.4 138.2 118.4 108.0 104.2
Short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL).... 163.9 149.9 137.1 125.1 118.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Will Lockheed-Martin request contract consideration for
reducing the number of aircraft procured, if yes how much?
Answer. No. The impact of the fiscal year 2013 President's budget
will be incorporated into the respective negotiated and awarded LRIP
contracts at the outset. Therefore, Lockheed-Martin will not have a
basis to request ``consideration'' against any negotiated contract.
Question. Will this unit cost increase induce another Nunn-McCurdy
Breach?
Answer. No. The Nunn-McCurdy calculation is heavily influenced by
the total aircraft buy. There has been no reduction to the total
planned Department of Defense aircraft procurement.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
USNS COMFORT
Question. The Congress authorized the Navy $10 million in fiscal
year 2011 military construction funding (P862) to modify Norfolk Naval
Station Pier 1 to serve as a permanent berth for USNS Comfort (T-AH
20). USNS Comfort has been homeported in Baltimore since 1987 and is a
crucial tool of America's ``smart power'' strategy and its ability to
achieve its missions must not be impacted for relatively small savings.
Since 1987, the USNS Comfort has deployed nine times, six of those have
occurred during hurricane season (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration defines hurricane season as June 1 to November 30).
Did the Navy consider the increased risk of berthing the USNS
Comfort in Norfolk during the hurricane season?
Answer. The risk associated with both locations was carefully
considered. During hurricane season, potential storms are tracked
throughout their lives. U.S. Navy ships at storm-hardened piers or
ships that are unable to meet underway timelines remain at the pier and
weather the storm. On the east coast, there is normally plenty of
advance warning to a hurricane making landfall in order to prepare
ships for sea. If the fleet were to sortie from Hampton Roads,
depending on the pier hardening for USNS Comfort's pier, she may not be
required to sortie. For example, Military Sealift Command's (MSC)
prepositioning ships berthed at Newport News CSX at storm-hardened
piers do not necessarily sortie when the Atlantic Fleet sorties.
We recognize that each hurricane situation will be different. We
understand that hurricane tracks are notoriously unpredictable. Should
a storm track take an unexpected turn, the ability for USNS Comfort to
quickly sortie into open ocean from a Norfolk berth was considered in
our risk assessment. The Atlantic Fleet has sortied twice in the last 5
years. If USNS Comfort were required to crew and sortie every year,
there would still be significant cost savings by departing from Norfolk
vice her commercial berth in Baltimore. If a hurricane were to threaten
Norfolk, USNS Comfort could get underway within 72-hours notice for
hurricane evasion when required and be able to quickly steam to safer
open waters offshore away from the storm. In summation, we consider
USNS Comfort being berthed in Norfolk to significantly decrease risk to
her and her ability to carry out her mission during hurricane seasons.
Question. How can the USNS Comfort respond to posthurricane
disaster relief mission if it has to sortie to avoid an impending
hurricane?
Answer. The ideal situation is to load medical equipment and
personnel onboard USNS Comfort prior to sortie. Otherwise, USNS Comfort
would sortie to a modified load out port and then proceed to the relief
mission. In the case of a scenario like Hurricane Irene heading up the
east coast last year, USNS Comfort would sortie out to sea and then
return to a load-out port unaffected by the storm before responding to
the disaster area. (Normally, official notification to deploy for a
disaster relief mission is not provided until several days after a
hurricane occurs and a Presidential Declaration is given or until a
formal request for assistance is requested from a foreign nation).
Question. Would having to first sortie from Norfolk to avoid the
hurricane storm significantly delay the USNS Comfort's response time in
providing disaster relief and humanitarian assistance?
Answer. No. While USNS Comfort sorties, the required provisions,
supplies, and manning could be directed to a selected load out port.
From the time of the order to sortie, USNS Comfort would be in open
waters much more quickly, ready to respond to further orders if she was
berthed in Norfolk. Steaming the ship to the selected load-out port
while simultaneously preparing the load-out cargo at that port would
allow the most flexible and efficient response. This is the normal
process for responding to combat mission taskings as well, and was
utilized for USNS Comfort's response to Hurricane Katrina.
Question. What would have been the impact on the USNS Comfort
mission to New York City in September 2001 if the ship had been
stationed in Norfolk and the base was responding in a defensive,
heightened security posture?
Answer. The response would have improved. The civil service mariner
(CIVMAR) manning of the USNS Comfort crew would be sourced from the
manpower pool onboard the naval base, and cargo and supplies for onload
would be facilitated by the cargo handling equipment and facilities
resident on the Norfolk Naval Base. Personnel responding from the
Portsmouth Naval Hospital would have less direct travel time to the
ship if she was berthed in Norfolk, Virginia.
Question. Did the Navy undertake a cost-benefit analysis based on
the cost to sortie the USNS Comfort while also attempting to prepare
and provide disaster and humanitarian relief assistance?
Answer. Hurricane sortie risk was taken into consideration.
Avoiding the 12-hour Chesapeake Bay transit time offers a cost savings
when comparing Baltimore to a coastal port.
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS DRAWDOWN
Question. The Marine Corps has requested a reduction of 20,000
marines by fiscal year 2017. For many servicemembers, returning home
and transitioning into civilian life will be challenging. The
percentage of veterans in poverty increased significantly in recent
years, rising from 5.4 percent in 2007 to nearly 7 percent in 2010.
Across periods of service, those veterans who have served since
September 2001, have the highest poverty rate. In 2010, 12.4 percent of
post-9/11 veterans lived in poverty, compared with 7.9 percent of Gulf
War I veterans and 7.1 percent of Vietnam era veterans.
As the Marine Corps prepares to drawdown troop levels, what is the
Department of the Navy (DON) doing to ensure soon-to-be veterans do not
end up in poverty?
Answer. The Marine Corps provides support to veterans throughout
the Nation. Our Marine For Life program will support improved reach-
back and outreach support for those veteran marines who require
localized support in their hometowns with information, opportunities or
other specific needs. We are enhancing our Marine for Life program and
its nationwide network of Hometown Links, both of which are integral
parts of our ``cradle-to-grave'' approach of Transition Assistance.
These assets help veterans develop and maintain local networks of
marine-friendly individuals, employers, and organizations and present a
proactive approach to help marines before problems arise.
Question. How does this budget address the unacceptably high-
unemployment rate for veterans?
Answer. The Marine Corps does three things for our Nation:
--it makes marines;
--it wins our Nation's battles; and
--it returns quality citizens.
We are improving our transition assistance program in order to
better meet the needs of our transitioning marines and return quality
citizens. Our program will be integrated and mapped into the lifecycle
of a marine from recruitment, through separation or retirement, and
beyond as veteran marines. There will be several ``touch points'' that
are mapped into a marine's career. Because 75 percent of our marines
will transition from active service after their first enlistment, these
contact points are focused on the first term of a marine.
Our initial step in this planned process to improve transition
assistance is our revised Transition Readiness Seminar (TRS). The
revised week-long TRS includes a mandatory core curriculum with four
well-defined military-civilian pathways:
--university/college education;
--vocational/technical training;
--employment; or
--entrepreneurship.
A marine will choose the pathway that best meets his or her future
goals and will have access to individual counseling services within
each pathway. Additionally, pre-work requirements will be expected from
each attendee to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the
seminar. This tailored approach to the TRS will greatly reduce
information overload and target the individual circumstances and needs
of the marine.
Question. Many marines find it difficult to translate what they
have done in their military occupations to civilian workforce, what is
DON doing to ensure the skills our troops have developed while in the
Marine Corps can be applied to civilian workforce?
Answer. The Verification of Military Experience and Training
(VMET), DD form 2586, document is an overview of a marine's military
career. The military experience and training listed on the VMET is
verified as official. The purpose of the VMET document is to help
marines create a resume and complete job applications. In addition,
they can elect to show the VMET document to potential employers,
employment/government agencies or to educational institutions. In some
cases, it can be used to support the awarding of training or academic
credit. Along with VMET document, marines can use DD Form 214s,
performance and evaluation reports, training certificates, military and
civilian transcripts, diplomas, certification, and other available
documentation to achieve the best results in these endeavors. Military
Occupation Specialty (MOS) Crosswalk is an activity that is conducted
in our revised Transition Readiness Seminars (TRS).
The marine will be trained to use their VMET document to do a gap
analysis between their work experience, education, available jobs and
Labor Market Information in order to help marines choose the
appropriate pathway:
--university/college education;
--vocational/technical training;
--employment; or
--entrepreneurship.
We teach these online tools in our TRS:
--O*NET Online (Department of Labor):
--Find occupations;
--Apprenticeship programs; and
--MOS Crosswalk.
--My Next Move for Vets (Department of Labor):
--Military Skills translator;
--Bright outlook jobs (high growth jobs over the next 5 years);
--Green jobs; and
--Department of Labor-registered apprenticeship programs.
--Hire 2 Hero (Department of Defense):
--Job search, military occupational codes military skills
translator; and
--Can submit resumes online to employers.
--VetSuccess (Department of Veterans Affairs):
--Military skills translators; and
--Can view and apply for jobs by geographic locations.
--Career One Stop (Department of Labor):
--Explore careers;
--Job searches;
--Resumes and interviews; and
--Salary and benefits.
Question. Is the Marine Corps partnering with the private sector to
assist in the transition to civilian life?
Answer. The purpose of the Marine for Life program is to develop
and maintain a network of marine-friendly employers, organizations, and
individuals in order to provide all marines with a reach back
capability and ongoing support in finding employment, pursuing
educational opportunities and realizing life goals. These partnerships
currently encompass more than 1,300 employers nationwide with a
demonstrated interest in employing marines as they leave active duty.
In addition, Marine for Life works closely with national level,
nonprofit organizations including the Marine Corps League, the Marine
Corps Executive Association, and the American Legion in leveraging
their members to assist transitioning marines with employment,
educational goals, and relocation.
F-35 TEST AND EVALUATION
Question. A Pentagon study on the F-35 recently reported that the
aircraft had completed only a small percent of its developmental test
and evaluation program. The report listed problems with the program
including the inability to land on an aircraft carrier. The Congress,
in the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act in 2009, established in
title 10, a stronger developmental test and evaluation office inside
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to provide better
oversight to correct deficiencies on new systems before they enter
operational test and evaluation.
Does OSD provide DON with the proper levels of resources and
authority to be effective in its mission to correct deficiencies on new
systems before they enter operational test and evaluation?
Answer. In general, DON has adequate resources and authority to
ensure known deficiencies are identified and corrected prior to a
system entering operational test and evaluation.
With regard to F-35, since the 2010 Nunn-McCurdy breach (and the
resulting Technical Baseline Review), the program has undergone
significant reorganization and has been appropriately resourced to
address future deficiencies. As part of the program reorganization,
test, and evaluation (T&E) processes have now been better integrated
with operational test (OT) involvement. Resource requirements are being
further refined to support updated requirements that will be defined in
a new F-35 Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP/Rev. 4). This TEMP
revision is currently being drafted and due to be signed in early
fiscal year 2013. Additionally, a Joint Operational Test Team (JOTT)
has been established and is actively involved with identifying
deficiencies of the F-35 weapon system on an on-going basis. The JOTT
does this through the conduct of Operational Assessments, as well as
via an integrated test process now in place, to provide continuous
feedback to the Program Executive Officer for the Joint Strike Fighter
(PEO(JSF)) and the warfighter/acquisition communities. PEO(JSF) is
directly involved in Ready-to-Test processes which culminates in an
Operational Test Readiness Review prior to test. All deficiencies and
the maturity of corrective action will be assessed as key criteria for
OT readiness to enter test. As the F-35 program further matures, and OT
begins to receive aircraft, it is expected that all of these processes
will continue to improve resulting in even a better understanding of
the F-35 Weapon System and insights to the PEO and the Department's
test community oversight activities.
Question. How can OSD provide better oversight and guidance as DON
develops new weapon systems?
Answer. Current OSD oversight and guidance is adequate for DON to
develop new weapon systems. On-going OSD efforts to gain efficiencies
in application of existing guidance should be continued.
With regard to F-35, OSD has been directly involved at all phases
of T&E planning. Specifically, Defense Operational Test and Evaluation
(DOT&E) leadership and action officers (or their designated
representatives) are present at all meetings and actively
participating. In the recent years there has been an increased presence
of design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E) representatives at
all key test and evaluation meetings as well.
Question. Do you believe prime contractors have assumed too much
responsibility for the execution of developmental test and evaluation
on large weapons systems?
Answer. The responsibility for developmental test is assigned, not
assumed, and the level of developmental test conducted by the prime
contractor is determined by the program manager and the Component
Acquisition Executive as the developmental test strategy is formulated
to ensure the system under development is adequately engineered and
tested to meet the requirements set out by DON. This strategy is vetted
with appropriate stakeholders and overseen by the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Development Test and Evaluation (DASD(DT&E)).
In the case of the F-35 program, the prime contractor was assigned
responsibility for the execution of DT&E. Due to the misapplication of
Total System Performance Responsibility (TSPR) authority, there was
inadequate communication from the prime contractor about interim
capabilities and interim performance of the overall air-system--which
led to systems engineering solutions that differed from the intended
requirements and sometimes falling short of the Services original
desires. For DON, Aviation Developmental Test (DT) is robust and has a
well established community of interest. A more tightly integrated
testing strategy with Government DT and Operational Test Authority
(OTA) involvement earlier in the program might have better served in
sustaining the original service requirements. These processes are now
in-place today and PEO(JSF) and the Prime Contractor (Lockheed-Martin)
are actively responding to government OTA inputs and guidance.
Question. How does the fiscal year 2013 DON budget provide for the
right balance between Government oversight on testing and contractor
execution of acquisition programs?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 DON budget provides a balanced mix
between contractor and Government in the T&E workforce. We utilize
Government personnel to conduct inherently governmental oversight
functions and contractor personnel in technical support and surge
roles. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes all the necessary funding,
both contractor and Government, for the approved test strategies that
have been developed by program managers and approved by leadership for
their respective programs.
For F-35, there is an integrated test force of Government and
contractor personnel and operational test is adequately resourced to
support all planned T&E program activities. As the U.S. Air Force
Operational Test and Evaluation Command (AFOTEC) is the lead test
organization, DON is using AFOTEC processes to conduct OT. Future F-35
resources requirements are subject to formal review and approval by DON
leadership and are currently being refined to ensure OT's active
participation through the entire F-35 Initial Operational Test and
Evaluation program. Operational test personnel are also funded to
participate in DT activities to provide insights and understanding of
accomplishments during developmental test and to allow them to
leverage, rather than repeat, DT tests.
ULTRA HIGH FREQUENCY SATELLITE FLEET
Question. The existing satellite fleet providing ultra high
frequency (UHF) capacity for U.S. Government agencies is nearing the
end of its lifespan. The Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) satellite
program will ultimately replace the existing satellite fleet by 2015.
However, the initial MUOS satellite orbits are not projected to cover
North and Latin America which creates a capability gap, especially if
one the aging satellites fail. Furthermore, apparently an existing UHF
capacity exists today, industry experts claim that only 10 percent to
20 percent of requests are filled.
What is the status of the MUOS-1 advance waveform terminal program;
to include:
--when the terminals will be available for global deployment;
--how long the U.S. military will need to rely on legacy UHF
satellite services; and
--what are the intentions of our allies and partners regarding
adopting the advanced waveform or is there a security issue
associated with their use of this new platform?
Answer. The Joint Tactical Radio System Network Enterprise Domain
(JTRS NED) program office is projecting Formal Qualification Testing
(FQT) of the MUOS Waveform v3.1 (a.k.a. Red/Black Waveform) in August
2012, which would enable it to be ported to the JTRS Handheld, Manpack,
Small Form Fit (HMS) Manpack radio by February 2013. This would mean
that an operationally representative user terminal would be available
in time for the MUOS Developmental Testing (DT)/Operational Testing
(OT) period in early fiscal year 2014.
Navy intends to buy 202 JTRS HMS Manpack radios across the FYDP,
including 50 radios in fiscal year 2013 to support MUOS testing, as
part of an inventory objective of approximately 450.
Statistical reliability analysis conducted by the Navy has shown
that the MUOS satellite launch schedule anticipated by the Navy (actual
launch dates will be set by the Air Force Current Launch Schedule
Review Board) will meet or exceed the legacy UHF satellite
communications (SATCOM) requirements set by the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council (JROC) through 2018. The new MUOS Wideband Code
Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) capability will be operationalized
with the launch and completion of on-orbit testing of the MUOS-2
satellite, projected in the late calendar year 2013, and will reach
full operational capability by the end of 2016, at which time the JROC
mandated requirement for legacy UHF SATCOM is retired. Legacy
capability will continue to be maintained beyond 2018, although at
lower capacity levels, to allow time for remaining users to transition
to the new WCDMA capability.
The National Security Agency (NSA) currently restricts the MUOS
WCDMA waveform from being released outside of the United States
Government.
Question. What is the status of the Navy's UHF satellite fleet;
include data on how many, in percentage terms, are within 12 months of
their nominal design life?
Answer. Seventy-five percent of the eight UHF follow-on (UFO)
satellites currently on orbit are at or beyond their 14-year design
life. The remaining two have been on orbit for 12.3 and 8.3 years,
respectively. The Navy's UHF satellite fleet (eight UFO satellites and
two fleet satellites), with the help of actions taken by the Navy to
mitigate unplanned losses of UHF communications satellites, the launch
of the MUOS-1 legacy payload, and the projected launches of MUOS-2
through MUOS-5, are projected to meet the Legacy UHF SATCOM requirement
through 2018. Legacy capability will be maintained beyond 2018 to
continue to facilitate the shift of remaining users to the WCDMA
capability and support coalition operations but not at the currently
required capacity.
Question. Even with the launch of MUOS-1, what is the risk that
current UHF satellites will fail? What would be the training and
mission impact if UHF satellites fail?
Answer. As noted above, statistical reliability analysis conducted
by the Navy has shown that the launch schedule anticipated by the Navy
for MUOS satellites (actual dates will be set by the Air Force Current
Launch Schedule Review Board) will maintain the legacy UHF SATCOM
requirements set by the JROC through 2018.
In an effort to reduce the risk of an unplanned loss of a UHF
satellite to acceptable levels, the Navy has aggressively implemented
several mitigation activities to extend the service life of the
existing constellation and increase on-orbit capacity. As a result, the
current legacy UHF SATCOM capacity provides the warfighter with
approximately 459 more accesses (111 more channels) worldwide than
required by the stated Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS)
capacity requirement. This additional capacity is equivalent to three
UFO satellites, provides a buffer against unplanned losses in the
future, and minimizes the training and mission impact to a manageable
level.
Question. The U.S. Government made the decision in 2010 to partner
with the Australians on a commercially provided, UHF hosted payload in
the Indian Ocean region. Now that the private sector intends to launch
an identical payload into the Atlantic Ocean region, what are the
United States and Allied plans to take advantage of this capability?
Answer. DOD partnered with the Australian Minister of Defense (not
the commercial provider) for access to 250 kHz of UHF Narrowband SATCOM
on a commercial satellite payload that Australia is leasing over the
Indian Ocean Region from 2012 to 2027. In exchange, the United States
will provide the Australians access to 200 kHz of spectrum over the
Pacific and 50kHz of spectrum globally from 2018-2033. DOD has
additional commercial UHF SATCOM capacity through leases the Navy has
procured on Leased Satellite (LEASAT) 5 and Skynet 5C and an agreement
with the Italian Government for access to a UHF SATCOM channel on
Sistema Italiano per Comunicazioni Riservate ed Allarmi (SICRAL) 1B.
As noted in preceding questions, the Navy is maximizing technical
and fiduciary efficiencies through a combination of the implemented gap
mitigation actions, commercial leases, international partnerships, and
the MUOS legacy payloads, to ensure the warfighter has access to legacy
UHF SATCOM capacity that meets the CJCS requirements and provides a
buffer against unplanned losses. Since all DOD requirements for UHF
SATCOM capacity are currently projected to be met over the Atlantic
Ocean region through 2018, DOD is not planning to take advantage of
this commercially provided UHF hosted payload in the Atlantic Ocean
region or any additional commercial UHF SATCOM capacity at this time.
The Navy will continue to monitor the health of the current UHF
SATCOM constellation for any signs that it is degrading more rapidly
than currently projected. If it appears the level of legacy UHF SATCOM
service will fall below CJCS requirements, the Navy will revisit all
options, including commercial leases and hosted payloads, to maintain
the current level of legacy service to the warfighter until the
transition to the MUOS WCDMA capability is complete.
Additional details are available in the Report to the Senate Armed
Services Committee on ``Ultra High Frequency (UHF) Satellite
Communications (SATCOM) Requirements and Options for Additional
Capacity'' signed on March 19, 2012, by the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition in response to the
fiscal year 2012 Senate Armed Service Committee Report 112-26.
Question. How does the fiscal year 2013 DON budget provide for
increased demand for UHF SATCOM both in the field and during training?
Does the Navy have a multitiered approach towards ensuring the U.S.
military has adequate UHF satellite access? If so, what is that
approach?
Answer. Current and future DOD Narrowband SATCOM requirements will
be met by the MUOS program through 2026. CJCS sets requirements for
Narrowband MILSATCOM for all DOD users based on warfighter needs and
the Navy fills those as the DOD Acquisition Agent for Narrowband
SATCOM. The current CJCS requirements are captured in the MUOS
Capabilities Production Document dated January 15, 2008, and the MUOS
program is on track to meet all key performance parameters given in
that document. Increased capacity requirements, combined with inherent
limitations of the military UHF SATCOM spectrum, drive the need to move
beyond legacy UHF waveforms found in current military and commercial
UHF SATCOM systems to the new WCDMA capability found in MUOS. Finally,
instead of a multitiered approach, MUOS reliability and availability
requirements are met by launching a fifth MUOS satellite as an on-orbit
spare.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
LHA 8 AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIP
Question. Secretary Mabus, Senate Report 112-77 which accompanied
the Senate's version of the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year
2012 included language about building the LHA 8 Amphibious Assault Ship
in the most cost-effective manner. Specifically, the subcommittee
directed the Navy ``to fully fund advance planning and design of LHA 8
and work with industry to identify affordability and producibility
strategies that will lead to more efficient construction of a large
deck amphibious assault ship to best meet combatant commander needs''.
Can you please provide the subcommittee details on efforts being
undertaken by the Department of the Navy (DON) to comply with this
direction?
Answer. The Navy intends to engage industry via two Early Industry
Involvement contracts that are focused on affordability and
producibility. The goal is to have these contracts in place by the end
of the calendar year. The contracts will utilize technical instructions
(tasks) to focus industry involvement on areas that have the potential
to reduce acquisition and life-cycle costs. These tasks will range from
assessing select technologies for their potential to be integrated into
the ship, such as Flexible Compartment Infrastructure, to more
production-friendly design requirements and arrangements, to evaluating
alternative C5I acquisition strategies. An Industry Day will be held
prior to the release of the Early Industry Involvement contracts to
ensure potential industry partners completely understand our
expectations for their assistance in reducing the cost of LHA(R) Flight
1 ships.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
DDG-51
Question. Last year, your strategy to introduce competition into
the DDG-51 program earlier than planned reaped significant savings for
the taxpayer, and I applaud you for that effort. In addition, the Navy
estimates that it could save up to $1.5 billion by exercising multiyear
procurement authority for the DDG-51 program during the next 5 years
for a nine ship buy over that period. I appreciated your description
during the hearing of how the multiyear procurement authority pending
before the Congress would result in savings for the DDG-51 program
during the next 5 years.
As I have stated in the past--based upon the Navy's own
requirements and the fragility of the industrial base--we need to
sustain an absolute minimum procurement rate of two large surface
combatants per year. However, you did not comment specifically on the
Navy's interest in procuring an additional DDG-51 in the multiyear
procurement if the Navy was provided authority to reinvest unexpected
savings from previous DDG-51 competitions or future competitions. I
would like to provide you an opportunity to clarify your view regarding
this matter. If the Navy were to take advantage of savings from
previous DDG competitions and to realize savings above those projected
for the upcoming multiyear procurement, would adding an additional
destroyer as part of the multiyear procurement be at or near the top of
your priority list?
Answer. Thank you for your strong support of our Navy and
especially our shipbuilding industry. As we build the future fleet, we
continually strive to maximize competition which will result in savings
that can be applied to purchasing additional ships.
In evaluating the merits of a multiyear contract for the fiscal
year 2013 through fiscal year 2017 DDG-51s, the Navy projected $1.5
billion in savings for nine ships across that time period. The
President's budget request has leveraged these savings in the
procurement of the nine ships. As you pointed out in your letter, the
Navy has achieved significant savings in previous competitions on the
DDG-51 program. There are savings in the DDG-51 budget line in prior
years. These savings alone are not adequate to procure an additional
DDG-51 as part of the multiyear.
However, if the Navy had the authority to reinvest savings from
previous destroyer competitions and were to achieve savings beyond what
was projected on this upcoming competition, the Navy would certainly
like to take advantage of the opportunity to procure an additional ship
in the fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2017 DDG-51 Multiyear
Procurement Program. In order to provide maximum flexibility, the Navy
intends to request pricing for nine or ten ships in the solicitation.
The Navy believes that this is the most affordable path to meet our
surface combatant requirements while also addressing industrial base
concerns.
The Navy looks forward to working with the Congress to maximize the
numbers of ships that we buy under these competitive multiyear
contracts. Again, thank you for your continued support for Navy
shipbuilding.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
ENERGY INITIATIVES
Question. Each of our armed services is a significant consumer of
energy and each is leading in its own way in addressing the challenges
of diminished fossil fuel supplies and increased costs. How is the Navy
leading in its efforts to diversify its fuel sources?
Answer. Because of the imperative for energy and national security,
the Department of the Navy (DON) believes the United States must reduce
its dependence on foreign oil. DON is making investments in the
American biofuels industry because this is vital to our operations and,
therefore, the security of the Nation. Currently, the Department of
Agriculture, Department of Energy, and DON have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding for this Alternative Fuels Initiative that
will be using the Defense Production Act title III authority. The three
agencies are expecting to contribute $170 million each to the effort--
$510 million total. There is a minimum requirement that industry
provides a 1-to-1 cost share, resulting in a total investment of no
less than $1 billion.
With the total investment, DON anticipates that 3-5 integrated
biorefineries could be constructed through new builds and retrofits.
This investment, combined with a strong demand signal for alternative
fuels from the military and commercial aviation, will be the impetus
necessary to sustain the overall alternative fuels industry sector.
The Navy has nearly completed the test and certification process
for hydrotreated renewable (HR) fuels and is moving on to evaluate
drop-in alternative fuel products from additional production pathways,
such as alcohol-to-jet and pyrolysis. Navy plans to have HR fuel in the
fuel specification by the end of fiscal year 2012.
In July 2012, the U.S. Navy will be demonstrating its Green Strike
Group, which is a carrier strike group comprised of a carrier, two
destroyers, and a cruiser, all operating on alternative fuels. The
destroyers, cruiser, and the airwing on the carrier will be using a 50/
50 blend of fossil fuel and biofuel. This demonstration will be a part
of the Rim of the Pacific exercise off the coast of Hawaii. In 2016, we
plan to deploy this Great Green Fleet overseas. These aggressive
efforts are a major part of the Secretary of the Navy's broader energy
goals.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE NETWORK
Question. Mr. Secretary, I understand that the Navy is weeks if not
days away from issuing the request for proposal (RFP) for its Next
Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN)--a highly complex information
technology (IT) program that involves transitioning the Navy's largest
and most secure network to a new contract. The Navy's acquisition
strategy for NGEN has been much maligned. In addition to frequent
criticism of the pass/fail technical requirements/lowest price
selection from acquisition authorities, the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) issued its 2012 annual report on
``Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation,
Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue'' strongly suggest that NGEN
should receive further scrutiny.
How can you convince us that the current course on NGEN will be the
best approach for the Navy and for the taxpayer? Is there value in
considering a more straightforward recompete of your current services
contract cost/performance trade-off since it apparently meets your
needs, and should be well understood by those who will be evaluating
proposals? If this lower-risk alternative is not being considered, why?
Answer. NGEN is a continuation of the Navy Marine Corps Intranet
(NMCI) 2010 under the Continuity of Services Contract (CoSC). The
current strategy is to competitively select either one or two vendors
for the two main segments of the network (Transport and Enterprise
Services) using a lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source
selection; a best value determination in accordance with Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.101-2. This approach for NGEN has
been endorsed as appropriate at the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) level via a robust oversight process that included multiple
Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT), OSD Peer and Milestone
Decision Authority (MDA) reviews. LPTA is considered appropriate when
the requirement is well-defined, price control is paramount, and the
risk of nonperformance is low. The performance requirement for NGEN is
NMCI as it performed on September 30, 2010. It is well understood. As
the network operates today, there is no development under NGEN. The
major changes in requirements are for increased Government Command and
Control (C2), enhanced Information Assurance (IA) and Government
ownership of the network infrastructure; there are no significant
changes in the technology required or how the contractor executes the
contract. Furthermore, the technologies integral to NGEN are widely
used Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) technologies. Finally, the
Department of the Navy (DON) has determined that there are no clear
discriminators for which the Government would be willing to pay more,
and, given that there are several companies that are capable of
delivering this service in accordance with the DON's requirements,
price was determined to be the overriding factor.
While a straight-forward recompete would continue to provide the
required level of service, it would not give the DON the needed insight
into the elements that make up an enterprise network. Under NGEN, the
38 services to be delivered are individually priced and available to be
recompeted separately or collectively as part of a FAR Part 15
contract; different from CoSC which was a FAR Part 12 contract that did
not give insight into pricing or allow for severability of services or
segments. This construct enables evolutions like the Joint Information
Environment, enterprise email, Data Center Consolidation and other
Department of Defense-level efficiencies without the burden of
recompeting the entire enterprise contract. Increased competition will
drive future innovation and price reduction without sacrificing
performance or security of the DON's network.
______
Questions Submitted to Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
ELECTROMAGNETIC AIRCRAFT LAUNCHING SYSTEM
Question. Among the revolutionary changes in the USS Gerald R.
Ford-class aircraft carrier is a new electromagnetic aircraft launching
system (EMALS). The Navy continues to test a variety of aircraft on the
system, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The question is
whether that technology will be ready in time, in order to avoid either
costly delays to the program--or an even more costly redesign of the
first ship of class.
What is the status of EMALS development and testing?
Answer. EMALS continues to meet its development and test
objectives. To date, the system has successfully completed 134 aircraft
launches (including F/A-18E clean and with stores, C-2A, T-45C, E-2D,
and F-35C) and more than 1,800 operationally representative deadload
launches. Concurrent environmental qualification testing, including
extensive aircraft, weapons, and personnel electromagnetic
compatibility testing at the component and system level, have
demonstrated EMALS suitability for use.
All deliveries to date of CVN 78 shipboard EMALS hardware have met
ship construction need dates. All future EMALS component deliveries are
likewise projected to meet shipyard need dates.
Question. Considering the criticality of this new technology, is
the Navy considering building a second test facility at Naval Air
Station Patuxent River to ensure the Navy has built in redundancy so
that the USS Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier delivers on
schedule?
Answer. The Navy has no plans to build a second test facility at
the Naval Air Station Patuxent River in support of the Ford-class
aircraft carrier program.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
SHIPBUILDING PRODUCTION RATES
Question. Admiral Greenert, the new Strategic Guidance for the
Department of Defense highlights the importance of Nation's maritime
presence and calls for increasing our posture in the Pacific. However,
when compared to the last budget submission, this request reduces ship
procurement from 57 to 41 ships. Admiral, if the Navy had additional
resources in fiscal year 2013 or 2014, what ships would the Navy
procure?
Answer. If appropriate fiscal resources were available in fiscal
year 2013 and/or 2014 the Navy would likely allocate more funding to
shipbuilding. The first priority would be restoring the attack
submarine (SSN) removed from fiscal year 2014 in our budget submission.
There will be a significant shortfall in ``SSN-years'' in the 2020s
that can be best addressed by sustained submarine procurement. Our
second priority would be restoring a destroyer (DDG) removed from
fiscal year 2014 in our budget submission. A shortfall of DDGs will
develop late in the 2020s that can be best addressed by sustained DDG
procurement. Both of these actions would require advance procurement
(AP) funding in fiscal year 2013; further, these changes would also
contribute immensely to a more stable industrial base.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
JOINT PACIFIC ALASKA RANGE COMPLEX
Question. One of the contributions to our national security that
Alaska is proudest of is the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex
(JPARC). Alaskan Command reminds me that it is a unique national asset
because it is in every respect a joint range. The Navy participates in
exercises on the JPARC from platforms in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). How
does the Navy's participation in exercises utilizing the JPARC add
value from a national security standpoint?
Answer. Since the 1990s, the Navy has participated in major joint
exercises in the GOA involving each of the services in the Department
of Defense and the Coast Guard. Participants report to a unified or
joint commander who coordinates the activities of the forces. Services
are able to demonstrate and be evaluated on their ability to
participate in a joint force in simulated conflict and carryout plans
in response to a national security threat.
Given the unique training environment provided by the JPARC, the
range contributes to Navy readiness by:
--Supporting U.S. Pacific Command training requirements.
--Supporting Joint Task Force Commander training requirements.
--Providing realistic, expansive areas to replicate actual
operations.
BIOFUELS
Question. I wonder if you might address the Navy's interest in
biofuels. Has the Navy determined that the benefits of biofuels
(potential decreased price volatility, diversified suppliers)
outweighed the costs (research and development investment, uncertain
future price of biofuels)?
Answer. Our alternative fuel initiative is an important investment
for the Navy. It addresses a core concern of our national strategic and
military operational need for energy security and energy independence.
Investing in sustainable future technologies is critical to Navy's
ability to remain the world's premier maritime force.
Navy is pursuing multiple paths to achieve a future less dependent
on petroleum and the fiscal effects of rising energy costs. The current
price volatility of oil increases the complexity of adequately funding
our global operations. Already in this fiscal year, unanticipated fuel
price increases have caused our operations accounts to become
underfunded by approximately $900 million. To technologically hedge
these execution year risks, the Navy will spend nearly $16 million on
laboratory capabilities to examine, test, and certify alternative
fuels. This expenditure positions us to validate the safe use of a wide
variety of drop-in replacement fuels in the future. Although the Navy
must pay a premium price to obtain biofuel for research and
development, as well as for test and certification purposes, the Navy
cannot and will not purchase alternative fuels for operations unless
the price is competitive with conventional fossil fuels.
Question. How has this comparison been done between biofuels and
the traditional fossil fuels?
Answer. There are a number of studies that state the case that
biofuels will be cost competitive as early as the 2018-2025 timeframe
without Government investment. A large majority of alternative energy
firms also believe that the infusion of capital (from Defense
Production Act title III or other investment sources) will measurably
speed up the timeline.
Question. How can a robust biofuel industry domestically change
that balance?
Answer. With a strong demand signal from the military and
commercial aviation, there could be enough pull to entice more
companies to enter this market. From the supply side, there are many
feedstocks, numerous pathways, and multiple processes being identified
for use in the alternative fuel industry. No single solution alone will
reduce our reliance on foreign sources of liquid fuel. With many
domestic biofuel companies in the market taking advantage of continued
research, the costs for biofuels will eventually be competitive with
conventional sources of petroleum.
Question. I understand that the Navy is quite interested in hybrid
power and other fuel conservation efforts. Can you elaborate some on
these efforts?
Answer. Navy is very interested in energy-efficiency efforts both
afloat and ashore. It is the ``first fuel'' because what we don't
consume or use directly enhances Navy's combat capability by extending
the range and on-station time, in the air, on the water, or over land.
The logistics tether of resupply has been exploited by the likes of al
Qaeda in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is also a vulnerability at
sea. By reducing fuel consumption for ships and aircraft, Navy reduces
its reliance on a vulnerable logistics chain and improves its agility
to meet the mission.
Initiatives range from simple lighting changes that are more energy
efficient and last much longer than fluorescent bulbs to more efficient
engines and a hybrid electric drive (HED) that drastically reduces fuel
consumption for DDG-51. Below are some examples of energy initiatives
that Navy is implementing in fiscal year 2013.
--A HED is in development for use in the DDG-51. The proof of concept
is scheduled to be installed in fiscal year 2013.
--The Navy replaced the steam boilers on USS Makin Island (LHD 8)
with gas turbines and an Auxiliary Propulsion System or HED.
This propulsion system saved approximately $2 million in fuel
cost during her transit from Pascagoula, Mississippi to San
Diego, California. Over the ship's lifetime the Navy expects to
save more than $250 million. This system will be installed on
the LHA 6 class ships.
--Installation of ship-wide, energy consumption monitoring systems
that compute the power usage and operating conditions of
energy-consuming systems on the ship and display this
information for leadership. Estimated efficiency gain is 2,179
Bbls/ship/yr.
--Replacement of fluorescent and incandescent lamps aboard DDG-51,
CG-47, LSD 41/49, and LHD 1 class ships with more efficient
solid-state lighting. Estimated efficiency gain is 100-500
Bbls/ship/yr.
--Development and installation of stern flaps on LHD 1 and LSD 41/49
class ships for improved hydrodynamics as demonstrated on USS
Kearsage (LHD 3). The USS Kearsage will have an annual fuel
reduction of 6,241 Bbls/yr. Overall estimated efficiency gain
is 4,000-5,000 Bbls/ship/yr through the LHD 1 and LSD 41/49
classes.
--Replacement of obsolete fuel-air mixture monitors for main
propulsion boilers on LHA 1 and LHD 1 class ships with a new
automated system to control the fuel air mixture to increase
efficiency. Estimated efficiency gain of >3,000 Bbls/ship/yr.
Intelligent Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning and Refrigerating
(HVAC&R): HVAC&R plants on Military Sealift Command T-AKE ships consume
approximately 36 percent of the total ship's power generated and lack
the ability to be optimized to variable demands. Modifications to
improve efficiency will increase HVAC&R systems efficiency by 30-40
percent which translates into more than 4,000 Bbls/ship/yr.
______
Question Submitted to General James F. Amos
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
AMPHIBIOUS COMBAT VEHICLE
Question. General Amos, the amphibious combat vehicle (ACV) is a
part of the Marine Corps integrated and complementary portfolio of
combat vehicles critical to the future expeditionary Marine Air Ground
Task Force Operation. Last year, the Marine Corps terminated the
expeditionary fighting vehicle because it was too expensive. Since then
you have stated the need to deliver the ACV within 4 years as well as
be more affordable and sustainable. What measures are being taken to
ensure this vehicle meets the cost and schedule goals set forth?
Answer. The Marine Corps acquisition and requirements communities
are working side-by-side to ensure that capabilities and requirements
for the ACV are developed with an understanding of the costs associated
with each. We have conducted upfront systems trade studies to drive
technically feasible and affordable requirements decisions. We have
conducted an extensive Systems Engineering Operational Planning Team
that evaluated various system concepts to better define capability
versus affordability trade space. As part of the ongoing analysis of
alternatives we will conduct an affordability analysis to ensure the
selected system meets life-cycle affordability targets. All of these
efforts will ensure that cost goals are met, and if feasible and
affordable, will deliver a prototype capability in 4 years.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
MARINE CORPS COLD WEATHER TRAINING
Question. The Army takes great pride in the fact that Alaska's
training grounds produce ``Arctic tough'' soldiers. In fact the Web
site of the Army's Northern Warfare Training Center at Fort Wainwright
displays this inspirational message, ``A Soldier trained in winter is
also a good summer fighter; trained only in summer he is helpless in
the winter!'' This is something we've not discussed with the Corps
before. I'm wondering how the Marine Corps trains to operate in cold
climates and whether Alaska's ranges and training grounds might offer
some value to the Corps.
Answer. The Marine Corps trains to operate in cold weather and
alpine environments in medium to high-altitude aboard the Marine Corps
Mountain Warfare Training Center (MCMWTC) in Bridgeport, California.
MISSION
MCMWTC conducts unit and individual training courses to prepare
Marine Corps, Joint, and Allied Forces for operations in mountainous,
high-altitude and cold weather environments; and the development of
warfighting doctrine and specialized equipment for use in mountain and
cold weather operations.
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
MCMWTC is one of the Corps' most remote and isolated posts. The
Center was established in 1951 with the mission of providing cold
weather training for replacement personnel bound for Korea. After the
Korean conflict the name was changed to the Marine Corps Cold Weather
Training Center. As a result of its expanded role it was renamed the
Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center in 1963.
The Center occupies 52,000 acres in the summer and 62,000 acres in
the winter of Toiyabe National Forest under management of the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS). A letter of agreement between USFS and the
Marine Corps permits the use of the area to train marines in mountain
and cold weather operations.
The Center is sited at 6,762 feet, with elevations in the training
areas ranging to just under 12,000 feet. During the winter season
(October-April) snow accumulation can reach 6 to 8 feet. Of note,
severe storms can deposit as much as 4 feet in a 12-hour period. Annual
temperatures range from -20 degrees to +90 degrees Fahrenheit.
Marines at the Center are also involved in testing cold weather
equipment and clothing, and developing doctrine and concepts to enhance
our Corp's ability to fight and win in mountain and cold weather
environments.
UNIT TRAINING
The premier training evolution aboard MCMWTC is a 35-day exercise
called Mountain Exercise (MTNEX). The Center trains an infantry
battalion and its attachments and enablers from across the Department
of Defense (DOD). MCMWTC averages six MTNEXs per year with two being
conducted in the winter and four conducted in the summer. A MTNEX
trains elements of the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) across the
warfighting functions for operations in complex, compartmentalized, and
mountainous terrain utilizing military mountaineering skills in order
to enhance a unit's ability to shoot, move, communicate, sustain, and
survive in mountainous regions of the world.
The winter MTNEX focuses on over the snow mobility by way of
instructing a battalion on survival ski techniques, snowshoe
application, short- to long-range movements via both methods, survival/
field skills, and sustained operations in a cold weather environment.
The winter and summer training conducted at the MCMWTC is designed to
provide individuals and units the requisite technical skills to gain a
tactical advantage. Survival in extreme cold temperatures, maneuvering
long distances in snowshoes or skis to defeat an enemy force, and using
rope systems and climbing techniques, all of which allow a maneuver
commander to achieve surprise through unsuspected routes and to
maintain the initiative in complex, compartmentalized, mountainous
terrain.
INDIVIDUAL TRAINING
Winter Mountain Leaders Course
The Winter Mountain Leaders course is designed to train marines to
become subject-matter experts to a high degree in cold weather
operations on ice and snow covered terrain. The mountain operations
cold weather skills will enable enhanced movement, control of fires,
intelligence gathering, sustainment, and force protection in complex
snow and ice-covered terrain that is inaccessible to untrained marines.
Students are taught avalanche awareness, over the snow mobility to
Military Skier level, survivability, bivouac routine, mountain patrol
techniques, tactical considerations, weapons employment, fire support
considerations, the necessary skills to plan, organize, and lead
mountain/cold weather operations; to act as Scout Skier element leaders
on ridgeline flank security, picketing and recon patrols; to train
their units for mountain/cold weather operations; and advise MAGTF or
MAGTF element commanders and staffs.
Mountain Scout Sniper Course
The purpose of this course is to train Scout Snipers to be
tactically and technically proficient in a mountainous environment.
This course includes instruction in advanced marksmanship at high
angles with the M40A3 sniper rifle, M82A3 Special Application Scoped
Rifle (SASR), M16A2 service rifle, and combat marksmanship with the M9
service pistol. Instruction in high angle marksmanship includes range
estimation, determining slope angle and flat line distance, effects of
vertical and angular distortion, effects of elevation, and effects of
extreme weather. Instruction in field craft includes stalking and
concealment techniques in a mountain environment, man tracking,
counter-tracking, over snow mobility, mountain communications, and
mountain survival. Tactical instruction includes employment
considerations for scout snipers in a mountainous environment, detailed
mission planning, preparation and conduct of patrolling, and collecting
and reporting information.
Cold Weather Medicine
The purpose of this course is to give operating forces medical
personnel the knowledge needed to support their units in a cold
weather, mountainous environment. This course of instruction is
designed to bring the students to a high standard of tactical and
medical proficiency peculiar to a cold weather environment. The course
subjects cover movement, survival, bivouac routine, leadership,
diagnosing, treating, and preventing high altitude, cold-weather-
related illness and injuries, and techniques of transporting casualties
in a snow covered mountainous environment.
Mountain Command, Control, Communications Course
This course is designed to train communicators in the employment of
communications assets in a cold weather/mountainous environment. It
also covers communications planning for command posts and disaggregated
units in highly complex, compartmentalized terrain. Additionally,
graduates can be used by their parent units to train more marines in
basic principles of mountain communications. Instruction is provided in
wave theory and propagation, field expedient antennas, and re-
transmission operations, advantages/disadvantages of varied radio
equipment, planning for coverage through the use of all communication
assets available and speed.
Mountain Operations Staff Planners Course
This course is designed to provide staff officers and staff
noncommissioned officers academic instruction and field application in
planning, conducting, and supporting combat operations in complex,
compartmentalized, mountainous terrain. MWTC staff sections provide
additional in-depth instruction relating to all aspects of operations
and support functions in mountain warfare. Historical case studies and
guest speakers play a key role in highlighting numerous lessons
learned. Students then conduct operations in the local training area to
familiarize them with operating in mountainous terrain. The course
builds towards an intensive staff planning exercise and a follow on
field combat operations center operations and tactical exercise without
troops. This course is conducted once a year with an abbreviated
version conducted during MTNEX for the training battalion.
ALASKA
Alaska provides ample opportunities for cold weather training
however there are limiting factors that restrict the Marine Corps from
conducting training in Alaska. The elevation at the Black Rapids
Training Site starts at 440 feet above sea level and the terrain is not
true complex, compartmentalized terrain that marines will operate in.
Additionally the opportunity for the Marine Corps to train in Alaska is
cost prohibitive due to military air for movement of units by Naval Air
Logistics Operations being extremely limited, lack of an equipment
allowance pool for a marine unit to fall in on, and the training area
being 365 miles from the nearest port. Transportation of things and
transportation of personnel to include civilian labor costs to run the
ammunition supply point are additional cost factors.
SUMMARY
As it has since being established in 1951, the Marine Corps
Mountain Warfare Training Center provides the individual and collective
training opportunities necessary to ensure the Marine Corps is prepared
to operate in cold weather and mountain environments.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Mikulski. The Department of Defense subcommittee
will reconvene on Wednesday, March 14 at 10:30 a.m., and we are
going to hear from the Department of the Air Force.
This subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., Wednesday, March 7, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]